PWS_KNFS_1.pdf

Klamath River Revised Natural Flow Study Evapotranspiration Modeling External Peer Review

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

Technical Service Center, Denver CO

1. BACKGROUND

The purpose of this PWS is for peer review of a specific component of the Klamath River Revised Natural Flow Study (Study). This Study will leverage current science, methods, and tools to develop new naturalized streamflow estimates for certain locations in the Klamath River basin. Naturalized streamflow is defined as the streamflow that would have occurred in the absence of agricultural and other development (roads, railroads, municipalities, etc.) and water management. Estimates for the Study are being developed using the historical baseline period October 1980 through September 2020. The Study consists of three phases, corresponding with geographic regions within the basin. Analyses and findings from the Study are likely to inform future planning in the Klamath River basin. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Technical Service Center (TSC), in collaboration with the Klamath Basin Area Office (KBAO), other federal agencies and stakeholders, have developed a scope of work (SOW) to estimate naturalized streamflow at several locations throughout the basin. The naturalized streamflow estimates dataset and documentation will be peer reviewed to ensure quality, transparency and agreement on scientific approaches used.

The Study will be comprised of Scientific Information (SI) in the form of new data, models, and tools and classified as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA). Further, the Study will apply novel and state-of-science methods, tools, and analysis across numerous scientific areas (e.g. surface hydrology, groundwater modeling, river hydraulics, consumptive use estimation, water operations modeling) and synthesized in development of daily timestep natural streamflow estimates. This effort is not a routine implementation of known methods. The project team is not aware of previous or existing approaches that involve so many complex processes and where information is developed at this spatial and temporal scale.

In addition to the work resulting in a HISA, natural streamflow estimates in the Klamath River basin have significant interagency interest with respect to Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, several native Tribes, Oregon Water Resources Department, and California Department of Water Resources, among potentially others.

Additionally, this project involves several local and regional stakeholders, which contributes to Klamath River basin Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation efforts and also has provided feedback on the SOW for this project. This effort may serve to inform future ESA Section 7 consultations, in addition to future studies of habitat suitability. Further, previous naturalized streamflow estimates in the Klamath River Basin by Reclamation have been highly scrutinized and reviewed by the National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences, 2008).

In summary, based on broad interest, the controversial nature of this topic, and the novel approaches being developed and synthesized in development of a HISA resulting in daily timestep natural streamflow at multiple locations, this effort requires an external peer review, as defined by the Reclamation Manual Peer Review of Scientific Information and Assessments

Policy (CMP P14). Natural streamflow developed in this study will reflect 1) the removal of current human impacts including dams and diversion structures, irrigation withdrawals and return flows, other water use diversions and return flows, evaporation loss from reservoirs and 2) accounting for “pre-development” conditions which include extensive wetland systems, hydraulic connection between the Klamath River and these wetland systems, natural reefs along the Klamath River, and other land-use changes.

The Study began October 1, 2020, and is being completed in two geograPhases encompassing different geographic areas. Phase 1 encompasses the watershed upstream and including Upper Klamath Lake, Phase 2 the watershed between Upper Klamath Lake and Iron Gate Dam, and Phase 3 the watershed between Iron Gate Dam and the Klamath River confluence with the Trinity River. All three phases are being conducted jointly for the evapotranspiration (ET) component of the study relevant to this PWS.

Evapotranspiration data are being developed to support the Study in several ways. The et-demands model is being used to develop estimates of crop evapotranspiration to compare evapotranspiration estimates from other sources, and to develop estimates of effective precipitation. The Mapping EvapoTranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized Calibration (METRIC) model is being used inside the OpenET system to develop estimates of actual crop evapotranspiration, and wetland evapotranspiration. An empirical relationship between NDVI and groundwater ET based on eddy covariance data collected from similar settings is being applied to estimate annual groundwater ET from phreatophyte vegetation. Boundaries of crop fields have been developed from high-resolution aerial imagery which include attributes by year for irrigation efficiency, and irrigation status. These boundaries will be used with the OpenET-derived estimates of evapotranspiration and the et-demands-derived estimates of effective precipitation to develop estimates of irrigation withdrawals directly from the Klamath River or its tributaries which can be added back in to develop natural flow estimates. In addition, Open- ET estimates of wetland evapotranspiration will be used to account for the impact of more extensive wetland systems in the “pre-development” condition. Open-ET estimates and et-demands effective precipitation estimates will be used in conjunction with surface-water diversion records to estimate groundwater pumping rates for groundwater wells where no records exist.

The purpose of this PWS is to solicit a subject matter expert to peer reviewer the evapotranspiration modeling being conducted as part of the Study.

Tentative Review Schedule:

October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2027

2. DEFINITIONS

Contracting Officer (CO) – A duly appointed person with the authority to enter into, administer or terminate contracts, and to make findings and determinations on behalf of the United States Government. This is the only individual authorized to change the contract or any of the requirements stated herein.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – the individual, designated and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions for this specific task order.

Contractor – the contractor to perform the work required for this specific task order. The individual, partnership, company or corporation responsible for the duties and responsibilities under the task order.

3. SCOPE

The Bureau of Reclamation is looking to award a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to conduct a peer review of the evapotranspiration modeling as part of the Study. The peer review shall include a review of methodological choices, model development, including a review of input data, model calibration, results, and documentation. This review shall be based solely on the scientific information provided and not on any agency decision or policy.

The following tasks shall be performed:

3.1. Review of the et-demands model – A dual-crop coefficient et-demands model has been developed at a 1/24th degree spatial resolution to simulate crop consumptive use, effective precipitation, and net irrigation water requirement. This model simulates the diversity of crops found in each grid cell identified by examining all available Cropland Data Layer datasets (2008-2020). Model parameters have been calibrated using a combination of growing season information provided by local irrigation districts, KBAO, and using growing season cycles observed from remote sensing (e.g.

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). The et-demands model will be reviewed for the following –

3.1.1. the suitability of and uncertainty associated with the input forcing data,

3.1.2. the identification of crops simulated within each grid cell

3.1.3. the suitability of data used for calibration

3.1.4. the calibration of the model

3.1.5. overall model output performance including (but not limited to) simulation of crop evapotranspiration, net irrigation water requirement, and effective precipitation

3.1.6. a discussion of the uncertainty associated with model outputs

3.2. Review of the methods used in developing irrigated agricultural field boundaries and their respective irrigation type – Irrigated agricultural field boundaries have been developed using a range of remote sensing data. Irrigation type has been added as an attribute to each field by year to be used in combination with average irrigation efficiencies by type to estimate total applied water. The dataset does not need to be reviewed in detail, but rather a review of the methods used and data used to identify their suitability to the tasks.

3.3. Review of the OpenET crop evapotranspiration estimates –METRIC has been run using the OpenET system with Landsat data covering the years 1984-2020 to develop field scale estimates of crop evapotranspiration. The OpenET modeling will be reviewed for the following –

3.3.1. overall model output performance including the simulation of crop evapotranspiration

3.4. Review of the OpenET wetland evapotranspiration estimates and empirical groundwater evapotranspiration estimates for the historical baseline and the development of wetland evapotranspiration under pre-development conditions – wetland extents by vegetation type and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) have been identified and mapped, and OpenET METRIC data has been used to develop estimates of wetland evapotranspiration. Pre-development wetland extent by vegetation type has also been mapped and related to existing wetland to develop estimates of pre-development wetland and phreatophyte evapotranspiration.

3.5. Address the criteria outlined in the Peer Review Plan, including the following questions:

3.5.1. Is the purpose of the work clear?

3.5.2. Are the products compelling, useful, reproduceable and relevant to stakeholders and decision makers?

3.5.3. Is the approach well-designed, executed, explained, and transparent?

3.5.4. Are the data and information appropriately cited?

3.5.5. Are the assumptions and limitations explicit and justified?

3.5.6. Is the documentation accurate, understandable, clearly structured, and neutral in tone?

3.5.7. How well did the work address the 2008 NRC comments on the 2005 Natural Flow Study?

3.5.8. Did the work clearly state how this component will be incorporated into the larger Revised Natural Flow Study?

3.6. Review comments shall be delivered in the comment matrix provided to the Contractor.

Additional documentation (in the form of a report) is welcomed, but optional.

4. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

4.1. Contractor shall have at least 20 years of experience working in the field of evapotranspiration.

4.2. The Contractor shall hold a Doctor of Science or Philosophy degree in water resources engineering or in civil engineering with a focus in water resources.

4.3. The Contractor shall also have experience working with METRIC and the et-demands model.

4.4. The Contractor shall have experience working within the Klamath River Basin to have a baseline understanding of the local hydrology, geology, consumptive use, and water operations.

5. PERIOD AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

5.1. Work shall be performed at the Contractor’s business location.

5.2. It is anticipated the task order period of performance will be immediate upon receipt of the draft report. The duration of the review is 90 business days. The anticipated level of effort is up to 250 hours.

5.3. This is a firm fixed price contract.

6. GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY, MATERIALS, AND INFORMATION

6.1. The Government will issue no property to the Contractor.

6.2. The Government will provide to the Contractor all modeling files including input data, source code, configuration files, output data, calibration data, and draft technical memorandum describing model development, calibration, model results, and a discussion of uncertainty.

6.3. Except for those items or services specifically stated to be Government-furnished above, the contractor shall furnish all items (equipment, materials, supplies, incidentals, etc.)

required to successfully perform the work required.

7. TRAVEL

7.1. This is a firm-fixed price task order, all travel costs associated are included in the awarded task order. No additional travel expenses will be reimbursed without prior written approval by the Contracting Officer.

8. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

Contract employees will not operate any Government vehicle. Before any contractor employee is an occupant in any government vehicle, the contractor employee must sign and submit a Hold Harmless Government Vehicle Release.

9. SECURITY

Contractor employee(s) must comply with Reclamation security procedures and security training requirements in accordance with Reclamation Clause WBR 1452.237-80.

10. DELIVERABLES

The contractor will provide their review in a report documenting findings provided to the TSC Technical Lead, ET Technical contact, and Project Manager. The report at a minimum will address all tasks and specific questions defined in the Scope (Section 3). Included in the reports will be a description of findings and recommendations in a document with track changes or a comment matrix (template to be provided by Reclamation).

Peer Review Report: The contractor will provide their review in reports documenting findings within 30 business days of receiving review materials.

11. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PWS

Para

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

METHOD OF

OBSERVATION

STANDARD TO BE

MET/ALLOWABLE

DEVIATION

PERFORMANCE

GOAL

1.0 Schedule Project Manager

monitoring

No more than 2 overdue occurrences of more than 5 working days without prioir communication.

NA

10.1 Report is clear, complete, delivered on time, and require rare-to-no corrections.

Periodic Inspection

Contractor is expected to answer all Less than 2 incidents of the con

Full Compliance

12. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES:

All contract personnel are required to identify themselves as contractors. Whether attending meetings, answering government telephones, or working in other situations where their contractor status is not obvious to third parties, they must make their status known to avoid creating an impression that they are government employees.