Details for Harvest Job Id: 472191de-16bc-4dd6-a9fc-2f0a44fb180d

af1168f7-e58c-4a41-b3fa-1ed588b35423

Identifier: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=61b4782121d54ef18cde367d56b2927b&sublayer=0

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: cff3b49a-47c7-4ae1-88a3-2a6b922486d1

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=61b4782121d54ef18cde367d56b2927b&sublayer=0' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:45.247575

64142bf2-d986-45dc-890d-68330f066c66

Identifier: USGS:640f612dd34e254fd352e1ed

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: 538eaf22-6fe1-43b0-9ee5-e61556fecb21

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:640f612dd34e254fd352e1ed' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:46.288229

a667d0a6-53d3-467b-be8b-886ef967a6f3

Identifier: USGS:6596f8b0d34e3265ab158d38

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: 492a5e6c-3837-4107-9115-9b83142f83cd

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:6596f8b0d34e3265ab158d38' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:44.960452

16a2bf92-502b-4b6c-b455-983efd736e72

Identifier: USGS:68f8f45e-7ce4-46b8-8da5-c16e7d1a95b6

Title: Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement Off-Project Water Program Evapotranspiration Map for September 2004

Harvest Record ID: fa73653c-6fc9-4091-98e0-f1ea8250c4e5

Error Message:

• <ValidationError: '$.description, \'Hydrological Information Products for the Off-Project Water Program of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1199\\nU.S. Department of the Interior\\n\\t\\t\\nBy Daniel T. Snyder, John C. Risley, and Jonathan V. Haynes\\n\\t\\t\\nPrepared in cooperation with The Klamath Tribes\\n\\t\\t\\nAccess complete report at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1199\\n\\t\\t\\nSuggested citation:\\nSnyder, D.T., Risley, J.C., and Haynes, J.V., 2012, \\nHydrological information products for the Off-Project Water Program of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1199, 17 p., \\nhttps://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1199\\n\\t\\t\\nSummary\\n The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) was developed by a diverse group of stakeholders, \\nFederal and State resource management agencies, Tribal representatives, and interest groups to provide \\na comprehensive solution to ecological and water-supply issues in the Klamath Basin. The Off-Project \\nWater Program (OPWP), one component of the KBRA, has as one of its purposes to permanently provide \\nan additional 30,000 acre-feet of water per year on an average annual basis to Upper Klamath Lake through \\n“voluntary retirement of water rights or water uses or other means as agreed to by the Klamath Tribes, to \\nimprove fisheries habitat and also provide for stability of irrigation water deliveries.” The geographic area \\nwhere the water rights could be retired encompasses approximately 1,900 square miles. The OPWP \\narea is defined as including the Sprague River drainage, the Sycan River drainage downstream of Sycan \\nMarsh, the Wood River drainage, and the Williamson River drainage from Kirk Reef at the southern end \\nof Klamath Marsh downstream to the confluence with the Sprague River. Extensive, broad, flat, poorly \\ndrained uplands, valleys, and wetlands characterize much of the study area. Irrigation is almost entirely \\nused for pasture.\\n To assist parties involved with decisionmaking and implementation of the OPWP, the U.S. Geological \\nSurvey (USGS), in cooperation with the Klamath Tribes and other stakeholders, created five hydrological i\\nnformation products. These products include GIS digital maps and datasets containing spatial information \\non evapotranspiration, subirrigation indicators, water rights, subbasin streamflow statistics, and return-flow \\nindicators.\\n The evapotranspiration (ET) datasets were created under contract for this study by Evapotranspiration, \\nPlus, LLC, of Twin Falls, Idaho. A high-resolution remote sensing technique known as Mapping \\nEvapotranspiration at High Resolution and Internalized Calibration (METRIC) was used to create estimates \\nof the spatial distribution of ET. The METRIC technique uses thermal infrared Landsat imagery to quantify \\nactual evapotranspiration at a 30-meter resolution that can be related to individual irrigated fields. Because \\nevaporation uses heat energy, ground surfaces with large ET rates are left cooler as a result of ET than \\nground surfaces that have less ET. As a consequence, irrigated fields appear in the Landsat images as \\ncooler than nonirrigated fields. Products produced from this study include total seasonal and total monthly \\n(April–October) actual evapotranspiration maps for 2004 (a dry year) and 2006 (a wet year).\\n Maps showing indicators of natural subirrigation were also provided by this study. “Subirrigation” as used \\nhere is the evapotranspiration of shallow groundwater by plants with roots that penetrate to or near the water \\ntable. Subirrigation often occurs at locations where the water table is at or above the plant rooting depth. \\nNatural consumptive use by plants diminishes the benefit of retiring water rights in subirrigated areas. \\nSome agricultural production may be possible, however, on subirrigated lands for which water rights are \\nretired. Because of the difficulty in precisely mapping and quantifying subirrigation, this study presents \\nseveral sources of spatially mapped data that can be used as indicators of higher subirrigation probability. \\nThese include the floodplain boundaries defined by stream geomorphology, water-table depth defined in \\nNatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys, and soil rooting depth defined in NRCS \\nsoil surveys.\\n The two water-rights mapping products created in the study were “points of diversion” (POD) and \\n“place of use” (POU) for surface-water irrigation rights. To create these maps, all surface-water rights \\ndata, decrees, certificates, permits, and unadjudicated claims within the entire 1,900 square mile \\nstudy area were aggregated into a common GIS geodatabase. Surface-water irrigation rights within \\na 5-mile buffer of the study area were then selected and identified. The POU area was then totaled \\nby water right for primary and supplemental water rights. The maximum annual volume (acre-feet) \\nallowed under each water right also was calculated using the POU area and duty (allowable annual \\nirrigation application in feet). In cases where a water right has more than one designated POD, the \\ntotal volume for the water right was equally distributed to each POD listed for the water right. Because \\nof this, mapped distribution of diversion rates for some rights may differ from actual practice.\\n Water-right information in the map products was from digital datasets obtained from the Oregon Water \\nResources Department and was, at the time acquired, the best available compilation of water-right \\ninformation available. Because the completeness and accuracy of the water-right data could not be \\nverified, users are encouraged to check directly with the Oregon Water Resources Department where \\nspecific information on individual rights or locations is essential.\\n A dataset containing streamflow statistics for 72 subbasins in the study area was created for the \\nstudy area. The statistics include annual flow durations (5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 95-percent exceedances) \\nand 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) and 7-day, 2-year (7Q2) low flows, and were computed using regional \\nregression equations based on measured streamflow records in the region. Daily streamflow records \\nused were adjusted as needed for crop consumptive use; therefore the statistics represent streamflow \\nunder more natural conditions as though irrigation diversions did not exist. Statistics are provided for \\nflow rates resulting from streamflow originating from within the entire drainage area upstream of the \\nsubbasin pour point (referring to the outlet of the contributing drainage basin). The statistics were \\ncomputed for the purpose of providing decision makers with the ability to estimate streamflow that \\nwould be expected after water conservation techniques have been implemented or a water right has \\nbeen retired.\\n A final product from the study are datasets of indicators of the potential for subsurface return flow \\nof irrigation water from agricultural areas to nearby streams. The datasets contain information on factors \\nsuch as proximity to surface-water features, geomorphic floodplain characteristics, and depth to water.\\n The digital data, metadata, and example illustrations for the datasets described in this report are \\navailable on-line from the USGS Water Resources National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Node \\nWebsite http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getgislist or from the U.S. Government website DATA.gov at \\nhttp://www.data.gov with links provided in a Microsoft® Excel® workbook in appendix A.\\n\\t\\t\\nIntroduction\\n\\t\\t\\nProgram Background\\n The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) was developed by a diverse group of stakeholders, \\nFederal and State resource management agencies, Tribal representatives, and interest groups to provide \\na comprehensive solution to ecological and water-supply issues in the basin. The KBRA covers the entire \\nKlamath Basin, from headwater areas in southern Oregon and northern California to the Pacific Ocean, and \\naddresses a wide range of issues that include hydropower, fisheries, and water resources. The Water \\nResources Program (Part IV of the KBRA) includes a section (16) known as the Off-Project Water Program \\n(OPWP) (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, 2010, p. 105).\\n\\t\\t\\nProgram Goals\\n The primary goals of the OPWP include developing an Off-Project Water Settlement to resolve upper \\nbasin water issues, improve fish habitat, and provide for stability in irrigation deliveries (Klamath Basin \\nRestoration Agreement, 2010, p. 105). One of the approaches to achieving these objectives is a water-use \\nretirement program. The water-use retirement program is an effort to permanently provide an additional \\n30,000 acre-ft of water per year on an average annual basis to Upper Klamath Lake through “voluntary \\nretirement of water rights or water uses, or other means as agreed to by the Klamath Tribes, to improve \\nfisheries habitat and also provide for stability of irrigation water deliveries” (Klamath Basin Restoration \\nAgreement, 2010, p. 105–111).\\n The KBRA sets a 24-month window after the “effective date” for development of a proposal for the \\nOff-Project Water Settlement. There is interest on the part of the Klamath Watershed Partnership \\n(and others) in having a decisionmaking process in place before this time line. To assist parties in \\nthe OPWP involved with decisionmaking and implementation, the USGS proposed a two-phase \\napproach. The first phase, which is described in this report, includes compilation and evaluation of \\nrelevant existing work and data in the upper basin, and synthesizing that information into a set of five \\nhydrological information products. These products include GIS digital maps and datasets containing \\nspatial information on evapotranspiration, subirrigation indicators, water rights, subbasin streamflow \\nstatistics, and return-flow indicators. Should efforts continue, a second phase could be developed to \\nimplement a monitoring program to evaluate the level of success of the first phase and to address \\nadditional information needs.\\n Understanding the response of streams and groundwater to various land-use changes (such as \\nreduction of irrigation or changes in land management) in particular areas is important to maximizing \\nthe benefits to streams and to Upper Klamath Lake while minimizing the impacts to the agricultural \\ncommunity. The hydrology of the region is such that the response to changes in land use will vary \\nfrom place to place. Because of this, the benefit to the stream from a particular change in land or \\nwater use may be greater in one area than another.\\n\\t\\t\\nDescription of Project Area\\n The OPWP area is defined in the KBRA as including the Sprague River drainage, the Sycan River \\ndrainage downstream of Sycan Marsh, the Wood River drainage, and the Williamson River drainage \\nfrom Kirk Reef at the southern end of Klamath Marsh downstream to the confluence with the Sprague \\nRiver, encompassing a total area of approximately 1,900 mi2. Individually, the Sprague, Williamson, \\nand Wood Rivers provide about 33, 18, and 16 percent, respectively, of the total inflow to Upper Klamath \\nLake and together account for two-thirds of the total inflow (Hubbard, 1970; Kann and Walker, 1999, table 3). \\nExtensive, broad, flat, poorly drained uplands, valleys, and wetlands characterize much of the study area. \\nElevations in the study area range from about 4,100 ft at Upper Klamath Lake to greater than 9,000 ft in the \\nCascade Range. In general, land use in the Williamson River, Sprague River, and Wood River basins varies \\nwith elevation. At the lowest elevations, adjacent to the major rivers, agricultural lands (primarily irrigated \\npasture) predominate. Rangelands primarily are on the tablelands, benches, and terraces, and forest is \\npredominant on the slopes of buttes and mountains. Livestock grazing can occur on irrigated pastureland, \\nrangeland, and forestland throughout the study area. Average annual precipitation in the area ranges from \\nas low as about 15 in. near Upper Klamath Lake to about 65 in. at Crater Lake with most precipitation \\noccurring largely as snow in the fall and winter (Western Regional Climate Center, 2012).\\n\\t\\t\\nPrevious Studies and Water Conservation Programs\\n Recent studies in the Upper Klamath, Wood River, and Sprague River basins provided a foundation for many \\nof the analyses made for this current study. A study of the regional groundwater hydrology of the Upper Klamath \\nBasin is presented in Gannett and others (2007) and includes discussions of the hydrogeologic units, hydrologic \\nbudget, and configuration of the groundwater-flow system. Although the scale of this study is less useful for \\nsite-specific analysis, it provides a framework for analysis of the hydrology of the OPWP area. Carpenter and \\nothers (2009) provided a comprehensive analysis of hydrologic and water-quality conditions during restoration \\nof the Wood River wetland for 2003–05. In their study, they developed a water budget for the wetland in addition \\nto analyzing the mechanics of groundwater and soil moisture storage. Risley and others (2008) developed \\nstreamflow regression models used in this study to estimate a suite of streamflow statistics in study area \\nsubbasins. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009) presented findings from the Sprague River \\nConservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Their report documented the effects of water conservation \\npractices on private irrigated lowlands and uplands using field monitoring and hydrologic computer model \\nsimulations. Watershed Sciences LCC (2000) conducted a Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) survey flown in \\nAugust 1999 for parts of the Upper Klamath Basin that collected both thermal infrared and color videography \\nto map stream temperatures that can be used to identify point locations where return flows enter streams.\\n\\t\\t\\nPurpose of This Report\\n This report summarizes and provides details on information products created by the USGS for the OPWP \\nand its implementation. These products include a set of digital maps in GIS (ArcMap) format that can be used \\ntogether as overlays to help evaluate the relative benefits of reducing or curtailing water use in various areas. \\nThe maps are not intended to drive the decisionmaking process, but to inform the process. It is envisioned \\nthat there will be many additional considerations affecting decisions. The digital maps created for this study, \\nand described below in more detail, are (1) evapotranspiration, (2) subirrigation indicators, (3) water rights, \\n(4) subbasin streamflow statistics, and (5) irrigation return-flow indicators.\\n\\t\\t\\nAccess to Data, Metadata, and Example Illustrations\\n The digital data, metadata, and example illustrations for the datasets described in this report are available \\non-line from the USGS Water Resources National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Node Website (U.S. \\nGeological Survey, 2010c) or from the U.S. Government Website DATA.gov (2012). Appendix A consists of a \\nMicrosoft® Excel® workbook listing each dataset and URL links to the website for the dataset, metadata, and \\nexample illustrations.\\n\\t\\t\\nEvapotranspiration Mapping\\n\\t\\t\\nDevelopment\\n Maps quantifying evapotranspiration (ET) over the entire landscape included in the OPWP were produced under \\ncontract for this study by Evapotranspiration, Plus, LLC, of Twin Falls, Idaho. The maps were created using a \\nhigh-resolution remote sensing technique first developed by the University of Idaho (Allen and others, 2007a, 2007b). \\nThe technique known as “Mapping EvapoTranspiration at High Resolution and Internalized Calibration” (METRIC) \\nuses Landsat imagery to estimate monthly actual evapotranspiration at 30-m resolution that can be related to \\nindividual irrigated fields. For the KBRA OPWP study, METRIC was applied to 2 separate years of growing season \\ndata for which suitable Landsat imagery was available, representing wet (2006) and dry (2004) years. By using \\nthese 2 years, it was possible to develop a range of likely actual ET over varied climate conditions.\\n A small number of irrigated areas in the extreme eastern part of the Sprague River basin were not covered by \\nthe selected Landsat images used in the METRIC analysis. For these areas, ET was estimated using more \\ntraditional approaches that used standard ET models and crop coefficients combined with knowledge of crop \\nand vegetation types.\\n The METRIC procedure uses thermal infrared images from Landsat satellites to quantify ET. Because \\nevaporation uses heat energy, ground surfaces with large ET rates are left cooler than ground surfaces that \\nhave less ET. As a consequence, irrigated fields appear on the images as being cooler than nonirrigated fields. \\nThe METRIC model is internally calibrated using ground-based reference ET. Both the rate and spatial distribution \\nof ET can be efficiently and accurately quantified. A major advantage of using METRIC over conventional methods \\nof estimating ET that use crop coefficient curves is that neither the crop development stages nor the specific crop \\ntype need to be known. In addition to ET, the fraction of reference crop evapotranspiration (ETrF) also is computed \\nby METRIC. The alfalfa reference evapotranspiration (ETr), computed using local weather station meteorological \\ndata, is needed in calibrating METRIC to a specific study area.\\n Previous studies have shown that the error between ET estimated from METRIC and measured from lysimeters \\ndaily and monthly for various crops and land uses in other areas has been from 1 to 4 percent (Allen and others, \\n2007b). For the current study, the accuracy of the METRIC ET values for irrigated areas was estimated as 10 \\npercent for seasonal total ET values and 20 percent for monthly ET values (R.G. Allen, Evapotranspiration, Plus, \\nLLC, written commun., 2011). The accuracy of the METRIC ET values for nonirrigated areas was estimated as 20 \\npercent for seasonal total ET values and 40 percent for monthly ET values (R.G. Allen, Evapotranspiration, Plus, \\nLLC, written commun., 2011). These larger values for estimated accuracy relative to other studies are a result of \\na number of factors including the limited availability of Landsat images not impeded by cloud cover or sensor failure \\nduring the period of interest and the heterogeneity of the study area with regard to vegetation, terrain, and soils. \\nWhen making comparisons between individual areas of actual evapotranspiration, the relative difference between \\nthe areas likely has a much better accuracy than the accuracy of the absolute values of actual evapotranspiration \\nfor the individual areas.\\n Products produced from this study include total seasonal and total monthly (April–October) actual \\nevapotranspiration maps, in millimeters, for 2004 (dry year) and 2006 (wet year) and Landsat image maps for \\nApril–November 2004 and April–November 2006. Full details regarding Landsat image processing, METRIC \\ncalibration, and map production for this study are provided in separate reports written by the contractor and \\nincluded in the GIS metadata (Evapotranspiration, Plus, LLC, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c).\\n\\t\\t\\nSubirrigation Indicators \\n\\t\\t\\nDefinition\\n “Subirrigation” as used here is the evapotranspiration of shallow groundwater by plants with roots that penetrate \\nto or near the water table. Subirrigation often occurs in locations where the water table is at or above the plant \\nrooting depth. It can occur where the water table is naturally high or where it is artificially elevated from irrigation. \\nCertain settings, such as lowland areas along present flood plains, are more likely to naturally subirrigate than \\nareas more distant or elevated above surface-water features. This study deals primarily with natural subirrigation \\noccurrence. Because of the difficulty in defining the exact occurrence of subirrigation, this study presents several \\nsources of spatially mapped data that can be used as indicators of higher subirrigation probability. These include \\n(1) the floodplain boundaries and features reflecting stream geomorphology, (2) the water-table depth defined in \\nNRCS soil surveys and by topographic analysis, and (3) the rooting depth defined in NRCS soil surveys. The \\nindicators may be used separately or together, such as depth to water and plant rooting depth, to determine the \\noverall likelihood that subirrigation may take place.\\n\\t\\t\\nMap Descriptions\\n\\t\\t\\nFloodplain Boundaries and Features\\n Floodplains boundaries and features were delineated in a study of Sprague River basin geomorphology \\nconducted by the USGS and the University of Oregon (J.E. O’Connor, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., \\n2011). In the study, channel and floodplain processes were evaluated for 81 mi of the Sprague River, including the \\nlower 12 mi of the South Fork Sprague River, the lower 10 mi of the North Fork Sprague River, and the lower 39 mi \\nof the Sycan River. In addition to floodplain boundaries, other GIS layers created for the USGS Sprague River basin \\ngeomorphology study are channel centerlines, fluvial bars, vegetation, water features, and built features such as \\nirrigation canals, levees and dikes, and roads that were created from aerial photographs taken from 1940 through \\n2005, 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps, digital orthophoto quadrangles, and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) \\nimages (Watershed Sciences, LCC, 2000). Additional details on the USGS Sprague River basin geomorphology study \\nthat developed the floodplain boundary GIS layer can be found at the project website (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a) \\nor by viewing the metadata for the study (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b). .\\n The geomorphic unit categories for the areas in and adjacent to floodplains from the Sprague River Oregon \\nGeomorphology dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b) were assigned qualitative values for subirrigation potential \\n(J.E. O’Connor, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2011). Determination of low, medium, or high subirrigation \\npotential was made on the basis of the characteristics of areas from existing datasets and field observations of soils, \\nvegetation, topography, and hydrology. However, some areas, including wetlands, springs, and ponds, were not \\nmapped with the geomorphic floodplain and are not represented.\\n\\t\\t\\nSoil Rooting Depth\\n The soil rooting depth map is based on data from the USDA NRCS Klamath County soil survey (Cahoon, 1985, \\np. 13–96) and supplemented by the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (Soil Survey Staff, 2010). The \\narea of the soil survey excludes most public lands, such as National Forest or National Park areas or small private \\ninholdings with these areas. Values of rooting depths typically are presented as either a range between 10 and 60 \\nin. or as being greater than 60 in. For the purposes of this study, minimum, mean, and maximum rooting depths \\nwere calculated using the minimum and maximum rooting depth values. For calculation purposes, rooting depths \\ngreater than 60 in. are reported as equal to 60 in. Areas where the rooting depth is greater than the depth to water \\nmight support subirrigation.\\n\\t\\t\\nDepth to Water\\n The depth-to-water map is based on data for the seasonal high water-table depth presented in the Natural \\nResources Conservation Service soil survey for southern Klamath County, Oregon (Cahoon, 1985, table 18, \\np. 258–263) and supplemented by the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (Soil Survey Staff, 2010). \\nAs noted above, the area of the soil survey excludes most public lands. Values of seasonal high water-table \\ndepth in Cahoon (1985, table 18) or the SSURGO dataset are typically presented as a range between \\nminimum and maximum values. For the purposes of this study, a mean water-table depth was calculated \\nusing the minimum and maximum depth to water values. Maps of areas where the depth to water is less \\nthan the plant rooting depth provide insight into the likelihood that subirrigation may take place.\\n\\t\\t\\nWater-Rights Mapping\\n\\t\\t\\nDescription of Mapping\\n Water-right information in the map products is from digital datasets obtained on July 18, 2011, from \\nthe Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) and was, at the time acquired, the best available \\ncompilation of water-right information. Because the completeness and accuracy of the water-right data \\ncould not be verified, users are encouraged to check directly with the OWRD for situations where \\nspecific information on individual rights or locations is essential.\\n The two water-right maps produced for the study were a “point of diversion” (POD) map that shows l\\nocations of diversion from streams, and a “place of use” (POU) map that shows irrigated areas. Only \\nsurface-water rights are included on the maps; groundwater rights are not included. In compiling the \\nsurface-water rights data, all decrees, certificates, permits, and unadjudicated claims in the study \\narea were aggregated. The objective was to assemble all known water rights and claims into a common \\nGIS geodatabase consisting of one POU polygon feature class and one relating POD point feature class. \\nFor both maps, related POUs and PODs share the same “snp_id” value. All other fields whenever possible \\nwere carried through the process to preserve as many original POU and POD attributes as possible. Note \\nthat POU polygons may overlap adjacent POU polygons and care is advised to ensure that the correct \\npolygon(s) are selected or used in analyses, such as summation of attributes, to meet the intended \\npurposes of the user.\\n All Oregon surface-water rights, including decrees, certificates, and permits (http://gis.wrd.state.or.\\nus/data/wr_state.zip), were downloaded from the OWRD GIS water-right website (Oregon Water Resources \\nDepartment, 2012a). Surface-water irrigation water rights for the study area and within a 5-mi buffer of the \\nstudy area were then selected. The POU area was totaled by water right for primary and supplemental water \\nrights. The maximum annual volume (acre-feet) allowed under each water right was calculated using the POU \\narea and duty (annual irrigation application in feet). In situations where no duty was specified, the maximum \\nannual volume allowed under each water right was estimated assuming a duty of 3 ft/yr (82 percent of \\nsurface-water irrigation PODs in the study area had a duty of 3 ft/yr). Often a water right has more than one \\ndesignated POD. In these cases, the volumes were equally distributed to each POD within the particular \\nwater right.\\n The POUs and PODs of Klamath Basin unadjudicated claims were provided in a GIS geodatabase \\n(D. Mortenson, Oregon Water Resources Department, written commun., 2011). To supplement the \\ngeodatabase, data (such as priority dates, id numbers, and volumes) for many, although not all, of the \\nclaims were downloaded from OWRD’s Water Rights Information System (WRIS) (2012b). Although, the \\nPODs for the claims in the OWRD provided geodatabase did not include a use field, it was assumed that \\nall PODs for each surface-water irrigation claim were used for surface-water irrigation. In cases where claims \\nincluded multiple PODs, volumes were equally distributed. The maximum annual volume allowed under each \\nclaim was either provided or estimated. For approximately 25 percent of the claims, the maximum annual \\nvolume for surface-water irrigation was provided by WRIS in acre-feet. For the remaining 75 percent of the claims, \\nvolumes were estimated using the POU area and assuming a duty of 3 ft/yr (no claims had assigned duties). \\nAdditionally, an annual volume by claim from the adjudication process for the 1864 Walton claims was provided \\nto the study (D. Watson, Ranch and Range Consulting, written commun., 2011). Each of these volumes was a \\nresult of proposed order, stipulated agreement, or uncontested agreement and was current as of May 23, 2011.\\n\\t\\t\\nLimitations of Water-Rights Data\\n The information reflected in this dataset is derived by interpretations of paper records by OWRD. The user \\nmust refer to the actual water-right records for details on any water right. Care was taken by OWRD in the creation \\nof the dataset but it is provided "as is." The USGS and the OWRD can not accept any responsibility for errors, \\nomission, or accuracy of the information. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty \\nof merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this information (Oregon Water Resources \\nDepartment (2012b). \\n The data from the OWRD Unadjudicated Claims geodatabase (Oregon Water Resources Department, 2012b; \\nD. Mortenson, Oregon Water Resources Department, written commun., 2011) are based on claims as originally \\nfiled by claimants in the Klamath Basin Adjudication. The OWRD provides no warranty or guarantee as to the \\naccuracy of the information presented within these data, and is not intended to express a position on the nature \\nor validity of any claim. Any information contained herein does not reflect any recommendation or final determination \\nby the OWRD of the relative water rights in the Klamath Basin.\\n The OWRD datasets may not reflect actual water use or recent changes in land or water use as can sometimes \\nbe observed by comparison with the Landsat images or evapotranspiration mapping. A partial list of the reasons for \\nthis include (1) the underlying OWRD dataset needing updating, (2) water-right holders not submitting a change of \\nuse or transfer of existing water rights, (3) water-rights data may not reflect land-use changes subsequent to the \\ninitiation of the water right, (4) water not being diverted to POUs based on Claims that have not yet been approved, \\n(5) POU in the source OWRD database not reflecting recent findings of the adjudication of water rights in the Upper \\nKlamath basin, (6) claimed POUs that OWRD has denied, (7) possible abandoned water rights, (8) claim/water right \\noverlaps, (9) water rights not being utilized during a particular year, or (10) areas irrigated with groundwater or both \\nsurface water and groundwater.\\n In the area of the Wood River Valley, there are a number of irrigation water-rights POU polygons missing from the \\nOWRD dataset because the rights have been leased for instream use. In the past, OWRD has removed irrigation water \\nrights with instream leases from the publicly available GIS water-rights geodatabase. The current practice, however, is \\nto provide information regarding these leased water rights to the public. This practice was in place on July 18, 2011, \\nwhen the GIS water-rights geodatabase was acquired from OWRD. However, most leased water rights were not \\nincluded in the July 18, 2011 data acquisition and subsequently are not included in this report and associated maps. \\nOWRD has indicated that the omission of these water rights was unintentional and that they are working to correct the \\ndataset; the updated information was not available at the time this report was prepared.\\n\\t\\t\\nSubbasin Streamflow Statistics\\n\\t\\t\\nImportance and Relevance\\n Streamflow statistics were computed for 72 subbasins in the Off-Project Water Program area and adjacent areas \\nand include annual flow durations (5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 95-percent exceedances) and 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) and 7-day, \\n2-year (7Q2) low flows. Streamflow statistics were computed using regional regression equations based on historical \\nunregulated streamflow data; the statistics represent estimated natural flow conditions in the subbasins as though \\nirrigation diversions did not exist. The statistics were computed for the purpose of providing decisionmakers with the \\nability to estimate streamflow that would be expected after water conservation techniques have been implemented or \\na water use has been retired.\\n\\t\\t\\nData Sources\\n The streamflow statistics were computed using regional regression equations presented in Risley and others (2008). \\nAlthough that report contains regression equations applicable for all of Oregon, equations used for this study were created \\nfrom the Region 8 subset of 25 streamflow gaging stations in south-central Oregon. For the regression equations, computed \\nannual flow statistics based on the daily mean streamflow records at the gaging stations were used as the dependent variables. \\nBasin characteristics (such as drainage area and mean annual precipitation) of the drainage areas upstream of the gaging \\nstations were the independent (explanatory) variables in the equations. The equations relating dependent and independent \\nvariables were computed using time periods when streamflow was unregulated. For some of the streamflow records, estimated \\nirrigation water use was added to the record so that the record would reflect more natural conditions. Details on the procedure \\nused to adjust the records for irrigation water use are provided in Risley and others (2008, p. 8, 10).\\n A total of 7 equations were used to compute the annual flow statistics: 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 95-percent exceedances, and \\n7-day, 10-year (7Q10) and 7-day, 2-year (7Q2) low flows. Basin characteristics used to create the equations were computed \\nusing a geographic information system (GIS) and various data layers. Descriptions for all data layers are documented in Risley \\nand others (2008, table 5).\\n\\t\\t\\nMethods\\n For this study, the Off-Project Water Program area and adjacent areas were divided into 72 subbasins. Preliminary \\nsubbasins were delineated on the basis of the locations of the pour points (referring to the outlet of the contributing drainage \\nbasin) for Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Level 6 (12-digit) classification of drainage basins from the 1:24,000 Watershed \\nBoundary Dataset from the USDA Geospatial Data Gateway (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010). However, \\nlocations of the pour points for some subbasins were manually delineated on the basis of their proximity to streamflow gages \\nor other criteria thought to be useful for the study. Final delineation of the subbasins was accomplished for each of the 72 \\npour points using StreamStats for Oregon (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a), a Web-based GIS tool developed by the USGS \\n(Ries and others, 2008). StreamStats also calculates the basin characteristics required to estimate the streamflow statistics \\nusing the Region 8 regression equations from Risley and others (2008, table 5).\\n The calculation of the streamflow statistics using the Region 8 regression equations from Risley and others \\n(2008, table 14) were performed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The calculations also can be performed using the \\nUSGS National Streamflow Statistics (NSS) Program (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012). For the NSS Program, the following \\nsettings must be used: Options / Analysis Type / Other; State / Oregon; Rural / New / LowFlow_Ann_Region08_2008_5126. \\nThe basin characteristics that are used as the independent variables in the regression equations to compute each of the 7 \\nannual statistics: 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 95-percent exceedances, and 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) and 7-day, 2-year (7Q2) low \\nflows, consist of drainage area (in square miles) and mean annual precipitation (in inches) (Risley and others, 2008, table 5). \\nDetails about and the regression equations used to compute the annual flow statistics are provided in Risley and others \\n(2008, table 14). As discussed in Risley and others (2008), to expand the number of available unregulated streamflow-gaging \\nstations needed to create the regression equations, it was necessary to augment the daily-mean streamflow records for \\nsome stations with estimated monthly crop consumptive use. This procedure created records that were more representative \\nof natural streamflow conditions. The procedure that was used to estimate consumptive use was developed by the Oregon \\nWater Resources Department (Cooper, 2002). A discussion describing this procedure used also is provided in Risley and \\nothers (2008, p. 10).\\n Upper and lower prediction intervals at the 90-percent confidence level for all 7 streamflow statistics (5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, \\nand 95-percent exceedances, and 7Q2 and 7Q10 low flows) for the 72 basins included in the study were computed using \\nthe NSS Program (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012). Prediction intervals represent the probability that the true value of the \\ncharacteristic will fall within the margin of error. For example, a prediction error at the 90-percent confidence level means \\nthere is a 90-percent chance the true value of the characteristic will fall within the margin of error. Details about and the \\nequations used to compute the prediction intervals are provided in Risley and others (2008, p. 16). Prediction intervals \\nare not calculated for basins if the value of one or both of the basin characteristic values (drainage area and mean annual \\nprecipitation) for that basin is outside the range of the basin characteristic values from the set of gaging stations used to \\ncreate the regression equations. For Region 8 regression equations, prediction intervals are not calculated for values of \\ndrainage area or mean annual precipitation outside the range of 18.32 to 1,591.12 mi2 or 13.9 to 80.2 in., respectively \\n(Risley and others, 2008, table 17).\\n Very few gaging stations with sufficient record were available in Region 8 for use in the regression analyses by Risley \\nand others (2008, p. 17) for estimating streamflow statistics. As a result, for some of the 72 subbasins, the basin \\ncharacteristics used in the regression equations had values of some variables outside of the range of values used in \\nthe development of the regression equations by Risley and others (2008). Typically if one or more of the independent \\nvariables in a multiple regression are outside the range of the dataset used to develop the regression equations, \\nincreased prediction error can be expected. Additionally, streams with substantial groundwater inflows or streams \\nheavily influenced by wetland areas, such as occurs in some parts of the study area, may not be well represented \\nin the analysis. These factors may contribute to increased uncertainty in the estimates of the streamflow statistics \\nfor the 72 subbasins presented in this study.\\n Of the 10 sets of regional regression equations presented in Risley and others (2008) that cover Oregon, the \\nRegion 8 regression equations, which include the Upper Klamath Basin and south-central Oregon, have the highest \\nprediction errors. The cause of the errors can be related to two main factors—limited unregulated daily-mean \\nstreamflow data and a complex groundwater system.\\n For Region 8, records for only 15 gaging stations with a minimum of 10 years of unregulated streamflow data \\nwere available for creating regression equations for the 7 annual streamflow statistics (flow durations [5-, 10-, 25-, \\n50-, and 95-percent exceedances] and 7-day, 10-year [7Q10] and 7-day, 2-year [7Q2] low flows). Other regions of \\nthe State have a greater number of available unregulated streamflow records available for creating regression \\nequations. For example, unregulated streamflow records for 59 gaging stations were available for creating \\nregression equations in Region 3, in the Willamette River basin.\\n As described in Gannett and others (2007), the regional groundwater-flow system in the Upper Klamath Basin \\nis complex, substantial, and variable. \\n“Transmissivity estimates range from 1,000 to 100,000 feet squared per day and compose a system of interconnected \\naquifers.” “Groundwater discharges to streams throughout the basin, and most streams have some component of \\ngroundwater (baseflow). Some streams [such as Wood River and Spring Creek] however, are predominately groundwater \\nfed and have relatively constant flows throughout the year.”\\n If a greater density and number of unregulated streamflow records for gaging stations were available for creating the \\nRegion 8 regression equations, the groundwater component of the region’s streamflow could have been more accurately \\nmodeled in the regression equations. That in turn would have reduced some of the uncertainty in the estimates of \\nstreamflow statistics for the 72 subbasins in the study area. \\n\\t\\t\\nIrrigation Return-Flow Indicators\\n\\t\\t\\nDescription\\n Irrigation-return flow is defined herein as unconsumed irrigation water that returns to streams through subsurface \\nflow. Often irrigation-return flow recharges the groundwater system, follows shallow flow paths, and discharges to an \\nadjacent downgradient stream. However, depending on location and the groundwater hydrology, the irrigation-return \\nflow may instead enter and flow through intermediate or even regional groundwater-flow paths bypassing adjacent \\nstreams and discharging to distant downgradient rivers or regional discharge areas. The travel time of irrigation-return \\nflow from infiltration point to discharge point may be on the order of days to months for local groundwater-flow systems \\nor from years to decades for intermediate and regional groundwater-flow systems. The greater the distance traveled by \\nthe irrigation-return flow, the more likely the discharge will be distributed more broadly spatially and temporally. \\nIrrigation-return flow may result in higher water tables at the place of application or downgradient near discharge areas \\nmaking it vulnerable to loss by subirrigation, which diminishes the potential return flow. Irrigation-return flow also is \\nsubject to loss due to groundwater pumping.\\n The potential for, location, and timing of subsurface return flow of irrigation water for an agricultural area is typically \\nbest determined using a numerical flow model. The scale of modeling necessary to evaluate the OPWP, however, \\nexceeded the resolution of the present regional flow model developed by the USGS for the Upper Klamath Basin \\n(Gannett and others, 2012). As a consequence, it was not possible to make the necessary refinements to that \\nmodel in the time allotted for this study. Instead, a more qualitative approach was used. Maps were developed using \\navailable information to show the relative potential for return flow in the study area. Data used as indicators for \\nreturn-flow potential included depth to water, floodplain boundaries and features defined by stream geomorphology, \\nand distance to surface-water features. Shallow depths to water are often indicative of proximity to a discharge area; \\ninfiltration of irrigation water in these areas may be expected to discharge to adjacent streams and to have short travel \\ntimes. Geomorphic features of floodplains can be used to identify areas that are in close proximity of streams and \\nthat have soils conducive to the rapid infiltration of excess irrigation. The distance to the nearest surface-water feature \\ncan be used as a surrogate for travel time between infiltration of excess irrigation and discharge to a surface-water feature. \\nLarge distances can increase the likelihood that irrigation-return flow will enter intermediate or regional groundwater-flow \\nsystems, bypassing adjacent streams and not contributing to their flow. Large lakes, perennial streams, and streams \\nknown to be gaining flow from groundwater indicate interaction with the groundwater-flow system, as opposed to \\nintermittent streams, which may only exist as a result of surface runoff.\\n\\t\\t\\nMap Descriptions\\n Datasets for depth to water are described in the section, “Subirrigation Indicators.”\\n\\t\\t\\nFloodplain Boundaries and Features\\n The dataset delineating floodplain boundaries and features for the Sprague River basin previously described in \\nsection, “Subirrigation Indicators,” also can be used as an indicator of irrigation-return flow. The geomorphic unit \\ncategories for the areas in and adjacent to floodplains from the Sprague River Oregon Geomorphology dataset (U.S. \\nGeological Survey, 2011b) were assigned qualitative values for return flow potential (J.E. O’Connor, U.S. Geological \\nSurvey, written commun., 2011). Determination of low, medium, or high return-flow potential was made on the basis \\nof the characteristics of areas from existing datasets and field observations of soils, vegetation, topography, and hydrology. \\nAs previously noted, some areas, including wetlands, springs, and ponds, were not mapped with the geomorphic \\nfloodplain and are not represented in the dataset.\\n\\t\\t\\nDistance to Surface-Water Features\\n In this study, a GIS analysis was done to compute the distance between the point of interest and the nearest \\nsurface-water features. The assumption made is that the greater the distance from the surface-water feature, the \\nlower the likelihood that applied irrigation will appear as return flow at the stream or river in useful spatial and temporal \\nscales. Two analyses were made using different sets of surface-water features. The first analysis calculated the \\ndistance from each point in the study area to the nearest perennial stream or perennial large lake or pond. The \\nsecond analysis calculated the distance from each point in the study area to the nearest gaining (receiving groundwater \\ndischarge) stream (and downstream reaches) or perennial large lake or pond.\\n\\t\\t\\nDistance to Perennial Streams and Lakes\\n Perennial streams, lakes, and ponds were selected from the National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological \\nSurvey, 2010b). The dataset was further restricted to lakes and ponds greater than 1 km2 in area. The horizontal \\ndistance between each point in the study area and the nearest surface-water feature was then calculated using a GIS.\\n\\t\\t\\nDistance to Gaining Streams and Lakes\\n Gaining stream reaches were identified in the regional study of groundwater hydrology of the Upper Klamath Basin \\nby Gannett and others (2007, p. 22–37; figure 7, p. 24; and table 6, p. 72–84). Stream reaches downstream of the \\ngaining stream segments and large (greater than 1 km2) perennial lakes and ponds from the National Hydrography \\nDataset also were included. The horizontal distance between each point in the study area and the nearest of these \\nsurface-water features was then calculated using a GIS.\\n\\t\\t\\nAcknowledgments\\n The authors thank the many people that contributed their time and knowledge to help complete this study. Dorothy \\nMortenson and Bob Harmon, Oregon Water Resources Department, provided water-rights data. Dani Watson, Ranch \\nand Range Consulting, provided updates to some of the water-rights information. Chrysten Lambert and Shannon \\nPeterson, Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust, assisted in defining and identifying instream leases in the Wood River \\nbasin. USGS employees whose efforts contributed to the study include: Esther Duggan, Charlie Cannon, Tess Harden, \\nand Tana Haluska for their assistance with processing of the data; Jim O’Connor for his analysis of the geomorphology \\nof the Sprague River basin; and Marshall Gannett for insights on the hydrology of the Upper Klamath Basin.\\n\\t\\t\\nReferences Cited\\nAllen, R.G., Tasumi, Masahiro, and Trezza, Ricardo, 2007a, \\nSatellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration \\n(METRIC)—Model: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, v. 133, no. 4, p. 380–394, accessed June 27, 2012, at \\nhttp://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/water/papers/remote/ASCE_JIDE_Allen_et_al_METRIC_model_2007_QIR000380.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nAllen, R.G., Tasumi, Masahiro, Morse, A.T., Trezza, Ricardo, Wright, J.L., Bastiaanssen, Wim, Kramber, William, Lorite, Ignacio, and Robison, C.W., 2007b, \\nSatellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration \\n(METRIC)—Applications: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, v. 133, no. 4, p. 395–406, accessed June 27, 2012, at http://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/water/papers/remote/ASCE_JIDE_Allen_et_al_METRIC_application2007_QIR000395.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nCahoon, J.S., 1985, \\nSoil survey of Klamath County, Oregon, southern part: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 269 p., 106 soil map sheets, \\naccessed June 27, 2012, at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/OR640/0/or640_text.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nCarpenter, K.D., Snyder, D.T., Duff, J.H., Triska, F.J., Lee, K.K., Avanzino, R.J., and Sobieszczyk, Steven, 2009, \\nHydrologic and water-quality conditions during restoration of the Wood River Wetland, Upper Klamath River Basin, Oregon, 2003–05: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5004, 66 p. \\n(Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5004.)\\n\\t\\t\\nCooper, R.M., 2002, \\nDetermining surface-water availability in Oregon: \\nOregon Water Resources Department Open-File Report SW 02-002, 157 p., \\naccessed August 6, 2012, at http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/SW/docs/SW02_002.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nEvapotranspiration, Plus, LLC, 2011a, \\nCompletion report on the production of evapotranspiration maps for year 2004 for the Upper Klamath and Sprague area of Oregon using Landsat Images and the METRIC model: \\nTwin Falls, Idaho, March 2011, Revised March 28, 2011, 55 p., \\naccessed June 27, 2012, at https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/file/get/63140603d34e36012efa3677?name=Report_KBRA_OPWP_ET_2004_ETplus.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nEvapotranspiration, Plus, LLC, 2011b, \\nCompletion report on the production of evapotranspiration maps for year 2006, \\nLandsat path 45 covering the Upper Klamath and Sprague area of Oregon using Landsat Images and the METRIC model: \\nTwin Falls, Idaho, May 2011, 64 p., accessed June 27, 2012, at https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/Report_KBRA_OPWP_ET_2006_ETplus.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nEvapotranspiration, Plus, LLC, 2011c, \\nProduction of evapotranspiration maps for years 2004 and 2006 for Landsat Path 44 covering the Upper Sprague River area of Oregon using Landsat images and vegetation indices: \\nTwin Falls, Idaho, May 2011, revised September 8, 2011, 7 p., \\naccessed June 27, 2012, at https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/Report_KBRA_OPWP_ET_path44_2004_2006_ETplus.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nGannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., La Marche, J.L., Fisher, B.J., and Polette, D.J., 2007, \\nGround-water hydrology of the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5050, 84 p. \\n(Also available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5050/.)\\n\\t\\t\\nGannett, M.W., Wagner, B.J., and Lite, K.E., Jr., 2012, \\nGroundwater simulation and management models for the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5062, 92 p. \\n(Also available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5062/.)\\n\\t\\t\\nHubbard, L.L., 1970, \\nWater budget of Upper Klamath Lake southwestern Oregon: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA–351, 1 sheet. \\n(Also available at: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ha351.)\\n\\t\\t\\nKann, Jacob, and Walker, W.W., Jr., 1999, \\nNutrient and hydrologic loading to Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 1991–1998: \\nPrepared for Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Department and Bureau of Reclamation Cooperative Studies, \\nAshland, Oregon, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences LLC, November 1999, 39 p. plus appendices, \\naccessed June 27, 2012, at http://www.wwwalker.net/pdf/ulk_data_jk_ww_1999.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nKlamath Basin Restoration Agreement, 2010, \\nKlamath basin restoration agreement for the sustainability of public and trust resources and affected communities: \\nYreka, California, KlamathRestoration.gov, February 18, 2010, 371 p., accessed June 27, 2012, at http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/Klamath-Agreements/Klamath-Basin-Restoration-Agreement-2-18-10signed.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nNatural Resources Conservation Service, 2009, \\nSprague River CEAP study report: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon, 100 p.\\n\\t\\t\\nNatural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, \\nGeospatial Data Gateway: Website, accessed August 20, 2010, \\nat http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.\\n\\t\\t\\nOregon Water Resources Department, 2012a, \\nGIS water right website, accessed August 20, 2012, \\nat http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/maps/index.aspx.\\n\\t\\t\\nOregon Water Resources Department, 2012b, \\nWater Rights Information System (WRIS): Website, accessed September 3, 2012, \\nat http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/wr/wris.aspx .\\n\\t\\t\\nRies, K.G., III, Guthrie, J.G., Rea, A.H., Steeves, P.A., and Stewart, D.W., 2008, \\nStreamStats—A water resources web application: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3067, 6 p. \\n(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/fs/fs20083067.)\\n\\t\\t\\nRisley, J.R., Stonewall, Adam, and Haluska, T.L., 2008, \\nEstimating flow-duration and low-flow frequency statistics for unregulated streams in Oregon: \\nU.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5126, 22 p. \\n(Also available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5126.)\\n\\t\\t\\nSoil Survey Staff, 2010, \\nSoil survey geographic (SSURGO) database for Klamath County, Oregon, Survey area symbol–OR640, \\nSurvey area name-Klamath County, Oregon, southern part: \\nUnited States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,\\n accessed October 25, 2010, at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2010a, \\nStreamStats for Oregon: \\naccessed June 27, 2012, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/oregon.html.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2010b, \\nNational hydrography dataset: accessed August 20, 2010, at http://nhd.usgs.gov.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2010c, \\nWater resources NSDI node: \\nWebsite, accessed August 20, 2012, at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getgislist.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2011a, \\nSprague River basin geomorphology: Website, accessed July 16, 2012, \\nat http://or.water.usgs.gov/proj/Sprague/.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2011b, \\nSprague River Oregon geomorphology—Metadata: accessed May 30, 2012, \\nat https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?sprague_river_oregon_geomorphology.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Geological Survey, 2012, \\nNational Streamflow Statistics Program: Website, \\naccessed August 20, 2012, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nss/index.html.\\n\\t\\t\\nU.S. Government, 2012, Data.gov: \\nWebsite, accessed August 20, 2012, at http://www.data.gov/. \\n\\t\\t\\nWatershed Sciences, LLC, 2000, \\nRemote sensing survey of the Upper Klamath River basin—Thermal infrared and color videography, \\nFinal report prepared for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Corvallis, Oregon, 387 p. plus 30 p. plus appendix, accessed June 27, 2012, \\nat http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/klamathbasin/flir/upklamath.pdf.\\n\\t\\t\\nWestern Regional Climate Center, 2012, \\nCooperative climatological data summaries, NOAA cooperative stations—Temperature and precipitation, Oregon: \\naccessed July, 15, 2012, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmor.html.\\n\\t\\t\\nAppendix A. Access to Data, Metadata, and Example Illustrations\\n The digital data, metadata, and example illustrations for the datasets described in this report are available \\non-line from the USGS Water Resources National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Node Website (U.S. \\nGeological Survey, 2010c), or from the U.S. Government website DATA.gov (2012). A Microsoft Excel workbook, \\nlisting each dataset and URL links to the website for the dataset, metadata, and example illustrations, is available \\nat: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1199/KBRA_OPWP_Appendix_A_datasets_v2.xlsx. The datasets are provided as \\nEnvironmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) ArcMap file geodatabases or shapefiles or as \\nERDAS IMAGINE .IMG files. All data files have been compressed as .ZIP files. The metadata are provided as \\n.XML (Extensible Markup Language) files. Instructions for accessing the metadata are provided in the section \\n“Viewing Metadata” below. The example illustrations are in the form of Adobe® Systems .PDF (Portable Document \\nFormat) files.\\n\\t\\t\\nViewing Metadata\\n The metadata prepared for the datasets uses the FGDC XML (Federal Geographic Data Committee Extensible \\nMarkup Language) format. Suggestions for viewing metadata in FGDC XML format using ArcCatalog:\\n For ArcGIS 10: \\n 1. Navigate to the XML file in the catalog tree \\n 2. Click on the “Description” tab \\n 3. Scroll to the bottom and click “FGDC Metadata”. If this option is not present, change the metadata style \\n(in Customize - ArcCatalog Options – Metadata) to “FGDC CSDGM Metadata” (where CSDGM stands for Content \\nStandard for Digital Geospatial Metadata).\\n For ArcGIS 9\\n 1. Navigate to the XML file in the catalog tree \\n 2. Click on the “Metadata” tab \\n 3. Click “FGDC Metadata.” If this option is not present, change the metadata style (in Customize - ArcCatalog \\nOptions – Metadata) to “FGDC CSDGM Metadata.”\\n It is also possible to view FGDC XML metadata using a web browser. Navigate to http://geo-nsdi.er.usgs.gov/validation/. \\nAfter validation, the metadata may be viewed in a variety of formats. The “Questions and Answers” Output uses a \\n“Plain Language” format that may be helpful to those unfamiliar with metadata.\\n Alternatively, FGDC XML metadata may also be viewed using a web browser if the stylesheet “fgdc_classic.xsl” is \\npresent in the same directory as the XML file. The stylesheet is available from \\nhttps://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/fgdc_classic.xsl. To download the file from the web browser use \\nthe File command and “Save As” with the filename “fgdc_classic.xsl” and place the file in the directory with the XML file.\' does not match any of the acceptable formats: max string length requirement'>

Type: ValidationError

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:33:09.294241

7a0aa9fe-2cb8-42d4-9c33-06245cc761f5

Identifier: USGS:640f612dd34e254fd352e1ed

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: ad355b26-fa20-4045-b900-1d96b0cfa843

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:640f612dd34e254fd352e1ed' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:46.313701

9b2aa68b-6b86-456d-ad7c-9ad584933014

Identifier: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a8a1a6a60ff34cf0aa1d7544436cefca

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: afd9c8a8-b8cc-431e-9d52-b5acbd078b9c

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a8a1a6a60ff34cf0aa1d7544436cefca' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:45.142093

93f715f7-8513-497b-81df-8e00e93d43b7

Identifier: BSEE-0000000071

Title: BSEE Data Center - Gulf of America Region Boreholes by Lease

Harvest Record ID: 2ace083a-5e21-421a-81ed-c4053a157541

Error Message:

• <ValidationError: "$, 'modified' is a required property">

Type: ValidationError

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:52:48.444357

5f6bcdbd-e231-4bb6-8b01-881a3ad49dc9

Identifier: USGS:6489d846d34ef77fcafe5bae

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: 611a3685-1775-49fc-b369-fb23c2017cf6

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:6489d846d34ef77fcafe5bae' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:46.059385

a49fd5c6-1489-42e3-b813-ae89eac34dca

Identifier: USGS:67535065d34e5c4500cfeae9

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: d39c63c2-420b-4bb3-b933-7c7fa147b3e2

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:67535065d34e5c4500cfeae9' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:46.251191

68da4e4e-913e-404a-94c0-6bbe82b68959

Identifier: USGS:6442db77d34ee8d4ade8eaca

Title: N/A

Harvest Record ID: 3969ad49-7f60-4749-9b81-82f7f1ef3e9a

Error Message: Duplicate identifier 'USGS:6442db77d34ee8d4ade8eaca' found for source: test-new-doi-datajson

Type: DuplicateIdentifierException

Date Created: 2025-09-03 06:24:45.068719