HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-04 Kleinman Lambie Technical Memos File Nos 247-21-000553-MC and 247-21-000920-A (Central Land and Cattle Company LLC DeLashmutt)1
Tracy Griffin
From:Jeffrey L. Kleinman <kleinmanjl@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:34 PM
To:Angie Brewer
Subject:File Nos. 247-21-000553-MC and 247-21-000920-A (Central Land and Cattle Company,
LLC/DeLashmutt)
Attachments:LAMBIE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10-19-21.pdf; LAMBIE TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 9-7-21.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Angie,
Attached please find two technical memoranda from John Lambie. Kindly place them in the record in the above
proceeding.
Thank you.
Jeffrey L. Kleinman
Attorney at Law
The Ambassador
1207 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 248-0808
Fax: (503) 228-4529
Email: KleinmanJL@aol.com
E-PUR LLC
4061 SW Chesapeak Avenue
Portland, OR 97239
503.954.2096
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Karl Anuta, Esq., Law Office of Karl G. Anuta
CC:
DATE: October 19, 2021
PREPARED BY: John M. Lambie, CWRE, PE, PG, CEG PROJ. NO. 0646‐001‐01
SUBJECT: Technical Analysis of Groundwater Outflow to springs at Big Falls Ranch Co. in Terrebonne, OR
and water available for ODFW in mitigation for Thornburgh Resorts water development
INTRODUCTION
E‐PUR was engaged by the Law Office of Karl G. Anuta to review the technical characteristics of water
rights at the Big Falls Ranch (BFR), in relation to their alleged availability for use by Thornburgh Resorts as
mitigation water. I have reviewed the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) data on water levels
at four essential wells at BFR as well as materials prepared by Mr. David J. Newton, PE and CEG of H.A.
McCoy Engineering & Surveying to describe BFR’s water use, active pumping levels, and proposed
increases in extraction rates. The analyses indicate that the springs that generate a perennial Deep Canyon
Creek have dehydrated due to BFR water use and extractions and that the spring at the mouth of
McKenzie Canyon will produce less flow with further development by BFR. Surface water from Deep
Canyon is likely not available without a curtailment of extraction by BFR.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BIG FALLS RANCH (BFR) DIVERSIONS FROM DEEP CANYON CREEK
BFR held two surface water rights for diversion of the waters of Deep Canyon Creek that it transferred on
to four extraction‐wells as the Points of Appropriation to divert those waters under OWRD T‐12651. The
four wells in this transfer are referred to as Well 1, Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7. The attached Figure 1
depicts surface‐water rights governed under T‐12651 and the lands to which they provide irrigation water.
The transfer of two Certificates within T‐12651, 76371 and 88027, allows BFR currently to extract up to
5.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 2,468 gallons per minute, from these four wells. This extraction rate and
irrigation of these lands could represent its diversion of the waters of Deep Canyon Creek. Certificates
76371 and 88027 were diversions requested in 1967 and their legal and technical basis was for surface
water in Deep Canyon that was deemed by OWRD to be available for appropriation in 1977. The following
excerpts are the relevant factual text sections from OWRD’s Final Order for T‐12651 in regard to the rate
and duty for use of waters from Deep Canyon Creek that can be diverted at these wells. There are other
water rights appropriated at these same four wells and that becomes the issue here. There is over‐
appropriation in the area of water to support surface water flow and temperature regimes in the Middle
Deschutes River via springs, seeps, and submarine discharges.
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 2
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
At pages 2 of 8 and 3 of 8 of OWRD’s Final Order on T‐12651:
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 3
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
Then from the same Final Order at pages 5 of 8 and 6 of 8:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BFR DIVERSIONS FROM MCKENZIE CANYON CREEK
In addition to its Deep Canyon water rights, BFR has transferred one of two water rights it holds on
McKenzie Canyon Creek within T‐12651, Certificate 87655 for 4.5 cfs or 2,020 gpm. The following is the
portion of T‐12651 regarding McKenzie Canyon Creek.
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 4
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
The diversion of water from a spring at the bottom of McKenzie Canyon is modified by T‐12651 for this
first of two McKenzie Canyon water rights for all of the rate available under the original Permit. BFR holds
a second water right on McKenzie Canyon but it provides only for irrigation‐duty for additional lands but
no incremental diversionary rate as the full rate of diversion from McKenzie Canyon is fully available under
T‐12651. This second right for McKenzie Canyon water has become the subject of a proposed transfer by
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 5
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
BFR enumerated T‐13749 that was filed in summer 2021 and is under review. We discuss that in a
subsequent section as it is reflected in Figure 1.
SUMMARY OF T‐12651
T‐12651 took place in Water Year 2019. It allows for Primary Irrigation water on 464.9 acres and
Supplemental Irrigation water on 219.2 acres; those acreages and areas allowed irrigation water under T‐
12651 are displayed on Figure 1 using data from OWRD. The transfer now allows extraction of
approximately 2,700 acre‐feet of water per year at the Duty of 4‐feet per acre in the underlying surface
water rights that can be withdrawn at these four wells in addition to groundwater rights that can be
withdrawn at these same wells.
The BFR filed their Claim of Beneficial Use (COBU) for T‐12651 on September 30, 2020. This COBU for T‐
12651 describes what they have done to perfect the transfer. In it BFR has demonstrated that they have
the current capacity to divert the full Rate of 10 cfs, the equivalent of extracting 4,488 gpm. BFR in fact
demonstrates in their COBU that they have the capacity to extract 15.55 cfs or upwards of 7,000 gpm
from these same four wells.
T‐12651 can be considered complete as they have demonstrated that they can divert all the rate and duty
the water rights transferred. We note that one of the key characteristics of this transfer off of the two
canyon springs is a duty of 4‐feet/acre is now available at these wells as compared to their groundwater
rights that hold a duty of only 3‐feet/acre. We expect that OWRD will be issuing Certificates with the
respective priority dates of 1967 and 1973 to divert water from these same two sources, Deep Canyon
Creek and McKenzie Canyon flows. It will be listed in those pending certificates as appropriation of these
two surface waters at these four wells.
DESCRIPTION OF BFR GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FROM WELLS 1, 3, 4, AND 7
BFR holds five separate certificated groundwater rights to appropriate water at these four wells. These
range in priority dates from April 15, 1969 to May 15, 1989. Without the need here to go into details of
allowable rates at individual wells or their priority dates the five groundwater rights collectively enable an
additional 14.14 cfs to be withdrawn at any one time as appropriated groundwater. Thus with the transfer
of 10 cfs from T‐12651 onto any one of these wells they are collectively allowed to withdraw at a rate up
to 24.14 cfs at any time during the irrigation season. The individual diversion limits by well are very large
ranging from 12.23 cfs at Well 7 up to 15.72 cfs at Well 4 but the extraction rate altogether is subject to
the overall combined diversionary Rate of 24.14 cfs. As mentioned above BFR only has capacity now for
around 15.55 cfs. Also as mentioned these groundwater rights hold a Duty of only 3‐feet; however, that
Duty for groundwater rights to much of the same land areas is now rendered virtually moot by the
overprinting of the surface water rights. It is hard to envision a scenario in which the Duty would limit the
water use by BFR. But it is possible for BFR to increase the Rate of diversions.
BFR ACTIONS TO DIVERT MORE WATER FROM MCKENZIE CANYON AND ITS SPRING UNDER T‐13749
There is a pending transfer application T‐13749 by BFR from July 2021 that seemingly seeks to add another
149.8 acres with Supplemental irrigation water to these four wells by transfer of a subordinate portion of
the overall McKenzie Canyon spring diversion. T‐13749 pivots off of a Certificate that reflects 1.89 cfs for
Supplemental irrigation water but in fact it contains no new diversionary Rate as all of the Rate from
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 6
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
McKenzie Canyon was already transferred in T‐12651. What T‐13749 legally does is add these 149.8 acres,
some of which are already supplied by Supplemental irrigation rights. T‐13749 provides the 4‐feet/ acre
Duty found in surface water rights in the area, more than the 3‐feet/ acre in the Primary groundwater
right. However, what is most relevant to the risk to surface water flows in springs and at the mouth of
these canyon creeks it that T‐13749 reveals that BFR now seeks to develop additional capacity in its
wellfield to 16.04 cfs by increasing the capacity of Well 7 to 1,200 gallons per minute from its current
1,000 gpm capacity. That appears to be a point of concern and T‐13749 appears to provide time for BFR
to increase its capacity and supply an updated COBU in the event of any water rights challenges to the
seniority or quantity of diversions. They gain a 1973 priority as compared to principally a 1989 priority in
groundwater rights
CONCERNS FOR CONTINUATION OF DEEP CANYON AND MCKENZIE CANYON SPRINGS
The cumulative diversion of groundwater at these four wells beyond the underlying 10 cfs of surface water
rights is very likely creating problems for spring flows in one if not both source waters to the Deschutes
River. There are currently eight separate water rights held by BFR that cumulatively enable them to divert
the 24.14 cfs mentioned previously. To date BFR has only sought to develop to roughly 16 cfs of diversion
capacity for the water rights it has at these wells. However even the extraction rates and volumes BFR
have developed to date appear problematic for the historic springs that contributed to the Deschutes
River in this reach above its confluence with Wychus Creek. The concept of using these surface water
rights to provide some type of mitigation water may be rendered moot by dehydration.
BACKGROUND ON THE GEOHYDROLOGY OF SPRING FLOW AND THE EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION
Groundwater discharges occur at springs and seeps when both groundwater pressure (also known as
hydraulic head) is greater than the elevation head at the land surface, and there is a permeable pathway
for water to travel through the subsurface geology.
From USGS Circular 1139, Winter et al., “Ground Water and Surface Water ‐ A Single Resource”, 1998
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 7
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
The rate of flow at a spring or seep is governed by each of these two factors, hydraulic head and
permeability. The permeability of the pathway for water to travel through the subsurface is generally the
same regardless of the hydraulic head and as a result the change in rate of flow at a spring is not typically
due to a change in the transmission properties of an aquifer. However the rate of spring flow does change
with changes in hydraulic head as this is the pressure that is pushing the water out of the ground. If the
hydraulic head falls below the elevation of the spring then spring discharges ceases entirely, the same as
if the spring flow was being fully diverted at the surface.
Groundwater extraction by
a well or wells, lowers the
ambient hydraulic head
across the region from
which the wells gather
water. This known as the
well’s hydraulic capture
area. There results a
generally symmetrical
hydraulic capture area
centered at an extraction
well that extends across a
region. It expands over time
across a region until the
supply of water to the
geohydrologic system
equals the rate of
groundwater extraction at
which time the hydraulic
capture area stops
expanding.
This often happens when
the hydraulic capture area
of a well reaches a water
supplying boundary like a
river as shown here in D.
Also note that in C there is a
diminution in flow to the
river as submarine seeps or
groundwater discharge.
From USGS Circular1376, Barlow and
Leake, “Streamflow Depletion by
Wells ‐ Understanding and Managing
the Effects of Groundwater Pumping
on Streamflow”, 2012
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 8
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
In the time sequence shown above the capture of water to a well has continued until the well’s extraction
rate is met by the quantity withdrawn from the river and the ambient flow of groundwater upslope from
the river. However in the case of a spring, when the hydraulic capture area of an extraction well lowers
the hydraulic head to below the spring’s elevation the spring stops flowing. In the case of a spring fed
creek the water course ceases to flow open water much like the disconnected stream shown below, once
the sources of flow in the reach are insufficient for it to continue it becomes a dry gulch that is only wet
during periods of intense runoff.
From USGS Circular 1376 as above
Moreover the hydraulic capture area of excessive groundwater extraction continues to expand until either
a sufficient rate of aquifer replenishment is encompassed or there is a continued removal of groundwater
from storage. So in addition to the seasonal reduced discharge to a river from submarine seeps and
discharges in the summer irrigation season, there is a longer‐term removal of stored groundwater. This
condition of chronic overdraft lowers groundwater levels that can takes years to recover and not months.
Reductions in hydraulic head near a spring due to decreased groundwater in storage produces a long‐
term spring dehydration rather than just a seasonal cessation of spring flow. This phenomenon may be a
problem for the spring flow that supports Deep Canyon Creek whereas a reduction in flows or cessation
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 9
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
of flow at the spring located at the mouth of McKenzie Canyon may be seasonal as discussed in the
following presentation and analysis of data.
FLOW OF WATER FROM THE PRIMARY DEEP CANYON CREEK SPRING HAS LIKELY CEASED
This primary spring source for a Deep Canyon Creek is at an elevation of approximately 2,541 feet mean
sea level.1 Groundwater elevations measured during the off‐season and during extraction from the four
wells used to divert the surface waters in Deep Canyon are at or below the primary spring elevation now.
Our analysis of the situation follows.
Of the four BFR irrigation water‐supply wells examined here, three of them are within an interconnected
groundwater zone that is almost certainly interconnected as the source zone for ground water exhausting
at the Deep Canyon spring. This is based on the well construction, namely the elevation range of their
open intervals to the water bearing zones identified by the well driller, and the elevation of the spring.
OWRD in its hydrogeologic review of T‐12651 determined that these three wells correlate to each other
as being in one hydrogeologic unit. The three BFR wells which are connected to the spring in Deep Canyon
are Well 1, Well 3, and Well 4. The attached Figure 2 depicts these wells and the spring, their respective
groundwater elevations on March 9, 2020, a mapped interpolation of those groundwater elevations, and
our interpreted primary groundwater flow direction in March 2020. Of these three wells perhaps the most
significant is Well 1; it is located at the upper end of Deep Canyon Creek whereas the other two wells
connected to the zone that feeds this spring are lateral to Deep Canyon. The reason Well 1 may be the
most significant is because groundwater would reasonably be expected to decrease in hydraulic head in
a direction toward Deep Canyon which would represent flow in that direction and out the spring. But in
March 2020 the groundwater levels describe that the opposite is happening; groundwater in this source‐
of‐supply region is flowing west‐southwest away from the primary spring.
The fourth well, Well 7, demonstrates that there is not a deeper groundwater zone to support flow out of
the primary spring in Deep Canyon. Well 7 is screened at the lowest elevation overall of these four wells.
It is in a downslope area where the lithology has changed such that the first water bearing zones are in
broken basalt (see Attachment 1 for the well log of Well 7 at BFR). Static hydraulic heads in Well 7, as can
be seen on the graph of its historic data further on in this section, are far below the elevation of the spring
in Deep Canyon. This signifies that there is not a deeper confined aquifer zone that could support flow to
the spring from the likes of an unmapped set of vertical fractures or other interconnection from depth. It
also signifies that groundwater intercepted by Well 7 is in a different aquifer zone based on the large
difference in hydraulic head between Well 7 and the other three wells.
E‐PUR calculated the static groundwater elevation at each well over the past 20 years using the public
data from OWRD of BFR’s reported depth to water measurements required of them in March of each
year. Using the corresponding land‐surface‐elevation in the same reference datum, EGM96, for each
wellhead we calculated the static groundwater hydraulic head (i.e. equivalent elevation) in ft MSL. This
was done in order to have an internally consistent analysis of groundwater conditions relative to the
1 Based off the EGM96 datum used by Google Earth
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 10
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
elevation of the primary spring in Deep Canyon. Static groundwater elevations are depicted in the
following four graphics, one for each well, and the hydraulic head when pumping in 2020 is shown also.
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 11
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 12
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
In three out of four of the wells, Well 1, 4 and 7, the static groundwater level is below the spring elevation
in Deep Canyon. In the fourth well, Well 3, the March static water level by March 2020 is at virtually the
same elevation as the spring. Data do not appear to be available yet for March 2021 to ascertain the most
recent conditions measured by BFR.
At each of the four water supply wells, when it was pumping in Water Year 2020, the reported
groundwater hydraulic head was far below the primary spring’s elevation. The pumping water level at
each well is that provided by BFR in its COBU for T‐12651 on September 30, 2020. When pumping, each
well grows an active cone of depression that extends outward from it until groundwater outflow is
diminished or eliminated at the spring. It is a near certainty that there is no spring outflow in the summer
and it is a near certainty that flow in the Deschutes River is diminished as the river supplies some of the
water withdrawn by the wells directly and not just by forbearance. Both of these effects from the
dynamics of well pumping in the irrigation season are projected to have a negative short‐term impact to
the temperature and quantity of water flowing in the Deschutes River.
In summary both static and dynamic groundwater levels indicate conditions that either have or will soon
eliminate spring outflow into Deep Canyon Creek.
Furthermore, what can also be seen in each of these time‐series figures is that the static water levels
taken in March of each year demonstrate a decline over time. This signifies that the hydraulic capture
area of each supply well or the collective capture area to the supply wells has not yet found a sufficient
recharge area for the year on year volume of withdrawals; what is controlled by the Duty in the water
rights. Static groundwater levels have declined as much as 8 feet from their reference points of 2001.2
2 OWRD groundwater right 87558 established the reference points at each well as the March 2001 depth to water
measured at each of the four wells to protect the aquifer from unsustainable overdraft and protect senior rights.
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 13
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
The groundwater rights held by BFR limit the decrease in the static depth to water to a total of 10 feet
from their 2001 benchmark (i.e. a decline of the hydraulic head of 10 feet). The data over a 20‐year period
demonstrates that these irrigation water‐supply wells are semi‐continuously withdrawing water from
aquifer storage. The Duty in the BFR water rights may be unsustainable without local enhanced recharge
as natural recharge is not keeping up and more surface water loss can be projected.
Given the shallow and deep groundwater hydraulic conditions examined at each of these wells, flow at
the Deep Canyon primary spring either already has or will shortly cease to outflow water. Dehydration of
the Deep Canyon Creek is what appears to be happening by July 2018 when no open surface water flow
to the river appears to exist (see Figure 3); Figure 3 is a Google Earth view of Deep Canyon Creek spring
down to the confluence with the Deschutes River. This observational outcome is consistent with the
groundwater data and physics presented.
RISKS TO CONTRIBUTION OF COLDWATER TO THE DESCHUTES RIVER AT MCKENZIE CANYON
Perennial outflows of surface water engaged in the water rights appear to be derived entirely from a lower
spring at the mouth of the canyon and not from groundwater discharges or rainfall within the watershed.
This is consistent with the Point of Diversion in the remaining Certificate proposed for transfer in T‐13749
and the one already transferred in T‐12651. These transfers allow for 4.5 cfs to be diverted at the four
wells as if it was diverted at the mouth of McKenzie Canyon. When BFR completes their planned upsizing
of the extraction pump and piping at Well 7 mentioned previously, they will go from withdrawing 1,000
gpm to 1,200 gpm (see Attachment 2 from the application for T‐13749) and correspondingly dynamic
drawdown will increase by over 11 feet based on the information supplied in the COBU for T‐12651 and
that supplied in the application for T‐13749. The following figure depicts the relationship of water levels
from increased production at Well 7 and the elevation of the nearby spring at the mouth of McKenzie
Canyon as well as the elevation of the nearest reach of the Deschutes River.
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 14
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
Outflows from the spring at the mouth of the McKenzie Canyon are at risk of being greatly diminished
during the irrigation season which includes the late summer period when baseflow in the Middle
Deschutes is very dependent on spring flows. The attached Figure 4 depicts the location of Well 7 and the
elevations of the nearest reach of the Deschutes River at 2,520 ft MSL, the pumped water level at Well 7
if the pumping is increased (still completely within what BFR can do without T‐13749), and the McKenzie
Canyon spring and the adjoining Deschutes River.
ISSUES WITH THE PURPORTED MITIGATION WATER CLAIM BY THORNBURGH RESORT
The water purported to be available for mitigation by Thornburgh Resort from Deep Canyon is likely not
available at all. A significant portion of the water source for the diversions at Wells 1, 3, 4 and 7, five and
one‐half (5.5) cubic feet per second, is from Deep Canyon Creek; that is a portion of their legal source of
water for appropriative use. BFR’s current and legal diversion of waters from Wells 1, 3, 4, and 7 is almost
certainly removing the flow of water from Deep Canyon at the surface and in the subsurface is likely
causing the Deschutes River to supply significant amounts of water to the hydraulic capture of these wells.
What is difficult in restoring or providing Deep Canyon Creek outflow as real water is that by commingling
its water rights onto these same four wells BFR cannot easily restore flow back to the spring in Deep
Canyon. The static hydraulic heads observed in Wells 1, 3, and 4 would most likely need to increase to
above the Deep Canyon Creek spring for open water flow in Deep Canyon Creek to resume. This likely
means that groundwater production out of these wells would need to be stopped for a period to allow
groundwater levels to recover. The technical characteristic is that if water appropriations under T‐12651
were provided to ODFW in mitigation then spring outflow might return but only if the groundwater rights
for BFR were curtailed until spring flow resumes at or above the 5.5 cfs provided in the rights for Deep
Canyon Creek. What this means is that water appropriation at Wells 1, 3, 4, and 7 would have to be
October 19, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Use Impacts to springs and mitigation water availability
Page 15
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
curtailed for a substantive period of time, likely multiple years, in order for mitigation water to actually
be available. By simply buying some portion of BFR’s water rights Thornburgh Resorts does not have
mitigation water due to this commingling entanglement of water right points of appropriation. How the
surface water rights held by BFR could otherwise get disentangled from BFR’s groundwater rights appears
to be both technically and legally complex.
CLOSING
E‐PUR appreciates the opportunity to provide you these professional evaluations which have been
performed following customary practice in our fields of geology, geohydrology, hydrology, and water
rights examination.
Attachments:
Figure 1 ‐ Surface water rights at Big Falls Ranch under T‐12651
Figure 2 ‐ Deep Canyon Spring and Shallow Interconnected Groundwater Flow
Figure 3 ‐ View of Deep Canyon Creek and Spring, July 28, 2018
Figure 4 ‐Deeper Groundwater Under Pumping Stress at Big Falls Ranch with Deschutes River and Spring
Elevations
Attachment 1 ‐ Big Falls Ranch Well 7 Well Completion Record (DESC 768)
Attachment 2 ‐ Page 5 of 5 in transfer application T‐13749 by BFR
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
FIGURES
PROJECT NAME: Nunzie ReviewPROJECT NUMBER: 0646-001-01COUNTY, STATE: Deschutes County, OregonTOWNSHIP 14S RANGE 12 E
DATE: 8/4/2021 DRAWN BY: RSSCHECKED BY: JL
Figure 1Surface WaterPrimary and Supplemental Points of Diversion and Places of Use
8
8
8
8 9 9
99
4 4
44
5 3
3
3
3
10
1617
17 1720
20 20
20
18
1818
18
7
19 19
1919
T
1
2
6
5
1
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651T 12651
T 12651
T 13749 T 12651T 12651T 12651T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
POD out ofT-12651
POD out ofT-13749
Big Falls #3
Big Falls #4
Big Falls #7
Big Falls #1
0 0.50.25 Miles¯Document Path: R:\Projects\DEF\E-Pur-2054\0015-Nunzie Review\DataAnalysis\GISData\Projects\WaterRights_ThornburgResort\Figure 1_SurfaceWater_PrimSup.mxdSources: Oregon Water Resources Department
LegendPlaces of UsePrimarySupplemental
Points of DiversionPrimarySupplemental
T-12651 POAsSection Boundary
PROJECT NAME: Nunzie ReviewPROJECT NUMBER: 0646-001-01COUNTY, STATE: Deschutes County, OregonTOWNSHIP 14S RANGE 12 E
DATE: 10/5/2021 DRAWN BY: RSSCHECKED BY: JL
Figure 2Deep Canyon Spring andShallow InerconnectedGroundwater Flow
A
254125392540Big Falls #7
Big Falls #32541.7
Big Falls #42539.9
Big Falls #12539.1
Spring2541
0 0.20.1 Miles¯Document Path: R:\Projects\DEF\E-Pur-2054\0015-Nunzie Review\DataAnalysis\GISData\Projects\WaterRights_ThornburgResort\Figure 2_DeepCanyonSpring_GW_Flow_Direction.mxdSources: Oregon Water Resources Department
LegendWell LocationsASpring Water Level Contour(Natural NeighborInterpolation)
Current Groundwater Flow Direction Deschutes RiverDeep CanyonMcKenzie CanyonTailwaterImpoundment
Figure 3 - View of Deep Canyon Creek and Spring
July 28, 2018
900 ft
N➤➤N
PROJECT NAME: Nunzie ReviewPROJECT NUMBER: 0646-001-01COUNTY, STATE: Deschutes County, OregonTOWNSHIP 14S RANGE 12 E
DATE: 10/6/2021 DRAWN BY: RSSCHECKED BY: JL
Figure 4Deeper Groundwater Under Pumping Stress at Big Falls Ranch with Deschutes River and Spring Elevations
AQ
Q
McKenzieCanyon Spring2417
DeschutesRiver2415
DeschutesRiver2520
Big Falls #7
≤ 2418 Planned*
0 0.20.1 Miles¯Document Path: R:\Projects\ABC\Cliffs-2080\0014-Empire and Tilden\DataAnalysis\GISData\Projects\Coordinate_Converter\Figure 4_Deeper_GW_w_River_Spring.mxdSources: Oregon Water Resources Department
LegendASpring
Q River Elevation Well
/
Analysis of pumping water levelfrom planned increase in pumpcapacity by Big Falls in T-13749
D es ch u te s R ive rMcKenzie Canyon
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
ATTACHMENT 1
Big Falls Ranch Well 7 Well Completion Record
(Well Log DESC 768)
DESC 768
DESC 768
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 5 of 5 in transfer application T‐13749 by BFR
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 2
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
At pages 2 of 8 and 3 of 8 of T‐12651:
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 3
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
Then from the same Final Order at pages 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 in Mr. Newton’s Exhibit A:
The point of diversion has become wells for the water right but it has not become a groundwater right
contrary to the way Mr. Newton describes it. The Source of water being diverted at these wells is flow of
surface water deemed available from Deep Canyon Creek by OWRD in 1977. The simplest evidence is if
one looks up surface water rights listed by OWRD. I explain further in the following sections that this
diversion of surface water by well(s) is not only true as a point of water rights governance, it is also
technically true and correct.
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 4
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
BACKGROUND ON THE GEOHYDROLOGY OF SPRING FLOW AND THE EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION
Groundwater discharges occur at springs and seeps when both groundwater pressure (also known as
hydraulic head) is greater than the elevation head at the land surface, and there is a permeable pathway
for water to travel through the subsurface geology.
From USGS Circular 1139, Winter et al., “Ground Water and Surface Water ‐ A Single Resource”, 1998
The rate of flow at a spring or seep is governed by each of these two factors. The permeability of the
pathway for water to travel through the subsurface is generally the same regardless of the hydraulic head
and as a result the change in rate of flow at a spring is not typically due to a change in the transmission
properties of an aquifer. However the rate of spring flow does change with changes in hydraulic head as
this is the pressure that is pushing the water out of the ground. If the hydraulic head falls below the
elevation of the spring then spring discharges ceases entirely, the same as if the spring flow was being
fully diverted at the surface.
Groundwater extraction by wells lowers the ambient hydraulic head across the region from which the well
gathers water which is also known as the well’s hydraulic capture area. There results a cone of depression
centered at an extraction well that is most acute at the well but more importantly extends across a region;
it extends across a region until the supply of water to the geohydrologic system equals the rate of
groundwater extraction at which point the cone of depression and hydraulic capture area stops
expanding.
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 5
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
From USGS Circular1376, Barlow and Leake, “Streamflow Depletion by Wells ‐ Understanding and Managing the Effects of
Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow”, 2012
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 6
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
In the events shown above the capture of water to a well has continued until the well’s extraction is met
by withdrawal of flow from the river. In the case of a spring fed creek the following occurs when capture
to a well reaches the former spring water course. The water course such as Deep Canyon Creek ceases to
flow open water.
From USGS Circular 1376 as above
FLOW OF WATER IN DEEP CANYON CREEK HAS NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY BFR ACTIONS TO DATE
The rate of groundwater extraction by BFR has lowered groundwater hydraulic heads to below the
elevation of Deep Canyon Creek’s spring. The spring at Deep Canyon Creek is at an elevation of
approximately 2,541 feet mean sea level based on the EGM96 datum model used by Google Earth. The
attached Figure 2 depicts the location of Deep Canyon Creek spring and its appearance on July 28, 2018.
Open water flow of surface water from the spring to the Deschutes River at the top of the figure cannot
be observed on that date merely a vernal corridor at the bottom of the canyon. This is what would expect
due to the past and on‐going diversions by BFR of the waters of Deep Canyon Creek. The following figures
depict the known conditions at three of the four wells diverting from Deep Canyon Creek. The pumping
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 7
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
water level depicted is that provided by Mr. Newton in his Claim of Beneficial Use (CBU) filing for T‐12651
on September 30, 2020.
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 8
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
As can be seen in each of these three figures, the static water levels taken in March of each year prior to
the onset of the irrigation season show that groundwater hydraulic heads are declining year over year and
are now below the elevation of the Deep Canyon Creek spring. Of the three wells examined here, perhaps
the most significant is Well 1 and its recent dip below the Deep Canyon Creek spring. Well 1 is located at
the upper end of Deep Canyon Creek whereas the other two are lateral to Deep Canyon. Groundwater
would reasonably be expected to decrease in hydraulic head in a direction down Deep Canyon; now that
the groundwater hydraulic head at Well 1 is below the Deep Canyon Spring elevation it is reasonable to
expect that flow at the spring will cease given this juxtaposition. Dehydration of the Deep Canyon Spring
entirely is what appears to be happening by July 2018 when no open surface water flow to the river
appears to exist (see Figure 2); Figure 2 is a Google Earth view of Deep Canyon Creek spring down to the
confluence with the Deschutes River.1 This observational outcome is consistent with the groundwater
data and physics. I will add it is also consistent with BFR’s current water rights on Deep Canyon Creek. BFR
is allowed to divert from Deep Canyon Creek and that is exactly what they are doing by way of their use
of appropriative wells, Wells 1, 3, 4, and 7. It is of some utility to look at the relevant language governing
Water Right Transfers in Oregon such as was done for Deep Canyon Creek and especially with an eye on
the specific language for the Deschutes basin groundwater study area, OAR 690‐380‐2130 at (3) reads as
follows:
1 In May 2017 and July 2014 aerial photographic imagery on Google Earth one can observe a very small open channel
flow from Deep Canyon Creek at its confluence with the Deschutes River that is not present in July 2018.
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 9
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
(3) Notwithstanding section (2) of this rule, the Department shall allow a transfer of the point of diversion under section (1) of this rule in the Deschutes basin ground water study area if:
(a) The proposed transfer would not result in injury to an existing water right or enlargement of the water right proposed for transfer;
(b) The criteria in OAR 690-380-5000 are met;
(c) The new point of diversion appropriates ground water from an aquifer that is hydraulically connected to the authorized surface water source; and
(d) The use of the new point of diversion will affect the surface water source hydraulically
connected to the authorized point of diversion specified in the water use subject to transfer {emphasis added}. The Department may not require that the use of the new point of diversion affect the surface water source similarly to the authorized point of diversion specified in the water use subject to transfer under this subsection.
What this language means is that while various proximity requirements and such are waived in the
Deschutes groundwater basin the diversion from a source must be from that same source. A significant
portion of the water source for the diversions at Wells 1, 3, 4 and 7, five and one‐half (5.5) cubic feet per
second, is from Deep Canyon Creek; that is a portion of their legal source of water for appropriative use.
What may be regrettable for Deep Canyon Creek flows and for BFR is that the resulting outcome of this
commingling of water rights cannot easily be reversed with continued use of these four irrigation water‐
supply wells to divert other sources of water than the flows of Deep Canyon Creek. The static hydraulic
heads observed in Wells 1, 3, and 4 would most likely need to increase to above the Deep Canyon Creek
spring for open water flow in Deep Canyon Creek to resume as would be necessary for this mitigation
water to be available for use by Thornburgh Resorts and more importantly for the inter‐related habitat.
ISSUES WITH THE PURPORTED MITIGATION WATER CLAIM BY MR. KATZAROFF
The water purported to be available for mitigation has not been made available and is likely not available
at all. Contrary to Mr. Katzaroff’s assertions in his letter of August 31, 2021 that direct withdrawals from
Deep Canyon Creek have ceased, they have not. BFR continues to extract water from Deep Canyon Creek
based on their COBU filing of September 30, 2020 and based upon their most recent filing for T‐13749 in
late July 2021. BFR’s diversion of the waters from Deep Canyon Creek is in fact removing these flows. In
addition it appears that by placing the diversion of these waters on to the four wells as points of
appropriation they will not readily be able to stop diverting the surface water from Deep Canyon Creek as
a matter of fact and not a matter of water rights governance.
Additionally to the points raised by Mr. Katzaroff, BFR in their transfer application of late July 2021, T‐
13749, demonstrate that they expect to continue their claim to surface water and to increase the rate of
withdrawal at Well 7 to envelope another surface water right, Certificate 76372.This proposed transfer of
another surface water right is attention grabbing. BFR did not need to do this to maintain control of all
their water rights as the full rate and quantity of water involved in T‐13749 has already been transferred
to these same four wells, 1, 3, 4, and 7 in T‐12651; all BFR is doing in T‐13749 is adding acreage for
supplemental irrigation water. In OWRD’s analysis of T‐12651 they found that BFR currently hold water
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 10
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
rights for 24.14 cfs onto these four wells (see the attached Exhibit A, OWRD technical review of T‐12651)
This is significant because as of T‐13749 BFR is stating and demonstrating a desire and need to utilize up
to 16.04 cfs at any time (Exhibit B hereto is the stated rates page). It is becoming apparent overall that
there is a paper move of water that is going to take place here. There is every reason to believe that some
portion of the water rights between the 24.14 cfs that have legally already been transferred and the 16.04
cfs stated in Exhibit B are going to be sold or transferred off since T‐13749 provides no additional water
supply except as Supplemental water and makes little to no sense otherwise. As for the acreage that is to
be taken out of agriculture to provide an alleged relief to surface water that is a matter that is too opaque
at the moment to provide any conjecture. It is easy to see that the lands under T‐12651 utilizing surface
water have Supplemental water from groundwater rights held by BFR. Those groundwater rights of course
are extracted at the same four wells, Wells 1, 3, 4, and 7 depicted in Figure 1 that now also remove water
from the Deep Canyon Creek water rights.
ISSUES WITH THE PURPORTED MITIGATION WATER CLAIM BY MR. NEWTON
Mr. Newton asserts that by removing the flow weir and pumps previously used by BFR to divert directly
the surface water flows from Deep Canyon Creek that they have ceased diverting from Deep Canyon
Creek. This is simply incorrect. BFR are still diverting from Deep Canyon Creek by way of those water right
diversions being relocated to the four wells, Wells 1, 3, 4 and 7 which are the subject of T‐12651. Unless
and until BFR reduces extraction rates at those wells such that groundwater hydraulic heads rise above
the Deep Canyon Spring elevation the live flow he alleges exists at the top of page 4 in his August 31
memorandum will not exist. Furthermore the water rights he helped transfer in T‐12651 are now
inextricably intertwined with other water rights at those four wells such that even abandoning the water
rights in T‐12651 will not restore flows to Deep Canyon Creek or mitigate impact to that source of water.
The BFR has no water available to restore Deep Canyon Creek flows due to the changed groundwater
conditions that have resulted from their water use and perhaps from other water users as well as long
term climatic changes to the geohydrology of this area.
Mr. Newton in his “Clarifications ‐ Mitigation Water Source” on page 4 makes many erroneous assertions.
Where is the source of the mitigation water is a ripe question. Technically the evidence suggests that there
is none. The continuing declining groundwater hydraulic heads indicates that groundwater is being over‐
utilized and the use is not sustainable as is. Thus there is no source of water for mitigation at all. Even
forfeiture or abandonment of the Deep Canyon Creek water rights by BFR will not result in available spring
flow in Deep Canyon Creek until the extraction rates at Wells 1, 3, 4, and 7 are reduced to the point where
groundwater levels can recover. Given that there are commingled groundwater rights held by BFR such
as Certificate 87558 which is a groundwater right held by BFR that entitles them to extract 12.07 cfs at
these same wells, it may not be feasible for groundwater hydraulic heads to rise above the Deep Canyon
Creek spring and restore these flows for mitigation.
As to the importance of the source that Mr. Newton describes he is correct in stating that “pumping
reduces the amount of cold water that discharges as springs and seeps into the river system below the
ranch”. Mr. Newton then incorrectly asserts on page 5 that diversion from Deep Canyon Creek has ceased.
He is misspeaking when he says it does not matter if it is not Deep Canyon Creek water that is entering
September 7, 2021
Review and Assessment of Big Falls Ranch
Water Available for Mitigation
Page 11
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
the Deschutes River since those are the water rights being used for the mitigation and that is the location
of mitigation from a habitat perspective. It does matter that the flows from Deep Canyon Creek have not
been (and likely cannot be) restored from the BFR actions to date). Further on this point of why is the
source important, Mr. Newton states that it would not matter if it was cold water from another source at
BFR to the Deschutes River. To support this statement he attempts to show by way of evidence in his
Exhibit B that there are net gains to the Deschutes River; however, his Exhibit B is an unreferenced and
undated map reportedly from the USGS and with his indications of where the BFR is situated. The map is
certainly difficult to read and understand but more to the point even if it does interpret that there were
modest gains in flow to the Deschutes in the area of the BFR the map and its interpretations of river flows
among river reaches may simple be out of date and not express what is happening today. As can be seen
from the graphics produced of actual data at BFR through September 2020 the groundwater conditions
of hydraulic head as compared to surface water have changed and continue to change adversely by way
of their continuing decline. The groundwater hydraulic head at Well 3 for example is approximately 46
feet lower than the OWRD’s rating of the nearest river stage (Exhibit A) when pumping; as a result during
the irrigation season there will be a loss of flow from the Deschutes River at BFR and not a gain. The same
river losing condition exists at the next nearest well to the Deschutes River, Well 7, when using the river
stage rated by OWRD in Exhibit A hereto. Thus factually Mr. Newton is misspeaking when he says cold
water is flowing into the Deschutes River.
Further Mr. Newton states that the Thornburg Resort entities have purchased 90 acres of the BFR Deep
Canyon Creek water right. The BFR water rights for Deep Canyon Creek entitle their use to irrigate 477.5
acres of land to a duty of 4 feet. This is made up of 464.9 acres with primary irrigation water, and 12.6
acres as supplemental irrigation water (see Newton Exhibit A at pages 3 of 8 and 6 of 8). This equates to
a volume of water available to BFR to irrigate from Deep Canyon Creek flows of 1,910 acre‐feet per year
of water to irrigate the 477.5 acres to the annual duty needed in the area of 4 feet of water per year. BFR
continues to farm a great many more than 477.5 acres. There is no actual wet water being provided by
Thornburgh’s efforts to purchase water rights and convert them at BFR. BFR is interfering with its own
groundwater rights at these same four wells and may find that there Deep Canyon Creek water rights are
now subordinate and subject to curtailment or perhaps forfeiture.
CLOSING
E‐PUR appreciates the opportunity to provide you these professional evaluations which have been
performed following customary practice in our fields of geology, geohydrology, hydrology, and water
rights examination.
Attachments:
Figure 1 ‐ Surface water rights at Big Falls Ranch under T‐12651
Figure 2 ‐ View of Deep Canyon Creek and Spring, July 28, 2018
Exhibit A ‐ OWRD Hydrogeologic Review of Transfer Application T‐12651
Exhibit B ‐ Page 5 of 5 in transfer application T‐13749 by BFR
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
FIGURES
PROJECT NAME: Nunzie ReviewPROJECT NUMBER: 0646-001-01COUNTY, STATE: Deschutes County, OregonTOWNSHIP 14S RANGE 12 E
DATE: 8/4/2021 DRAWN BY: RSSCHECKED BY: JL
Figure 1Surface WaterPrimary and Supplemental Points of Diversion and Places of Use
8
8
8
8 9 9
99
4 4
44
5 3
3
3
3
10
1617
17 1720
20 20
20
18
1818
18
7
19 19
1919
T
1
2
6
5
1
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651T 12651
T 12651
T 13749 T 12651T 12651T 12651T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
T 12651
POD out ofT-12651
POD out ofT-13749
Big Falls #3
Big Falls #4
Big Falls #7
Big Falls #1
0 0.50.25 Miles¯Document Path: R:\Projects\DEF\E-Pur-2054\0015-Nunzie Review\DataAnalysis\GISData\Projects\WaterRights_ThornburgResort\Figure 1_SurfaceWater_PrimSup.mxdSources: Oregon Water Resources Department
LegendPlaces of UsePrimarySupplemental
Points of DiversionPrimarySupplemental
T-12651 POAsSection Boundary
Figure 2 - View of Deep Canyon Creek and Spring
July 28, 2018
900 ft
N➤➤N
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
EXHIBIT A
OWRD Hydrogeologic Review of Transfer Application T‐12651
Page 1 of 5 Last Revised: 04/20/2015
Oregon Water Resources Department
725 Summer Street NE, Suite A
Salem, Oregon 97301-1271
(503) 986-0900
www.wrd.state.or.us
Ground Water Review Form:
Water Right Transfer
Permit Amendment
GR Modification
Other
Application: T-12651 Applicant Name: Big Falls Ranch
Proposed Changes: POA APOA SW→GW RA
USE POU OTHER
Reviewer(s): Aurora C Bouchier Date of Review: September 20, 2017
The information provided in the application is insufficient to evaluate whether the proposed
transfer may be approved because:
The water well reports provided with the application do not correspond to the water rights
affected by the transfer.
The application does not include water well reports or a description of the well construction
details sufficient to establish the ground water body developed or proposed to be developed.
Other
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Basic description of the changes proposed in this transfer: The applicant wishes to transfer
(10.0 cfs) of surface water authorized under Certificates 87655 (McKenzie Canyon >
Deschutes River, 4.5 cfs), and 88027 and 76371 (Deep Canyon Creek > Deschutes River,
3.69 and 1.81 cfs respectively) to groundwater out of four existing wells. All four of the
wells are authorized as below (total rate includes SW from this transfer):
Water Rights DESC 2100
(Well 1)
DESC 2087
(Well 3)
DESC 2098
(Well 4)
DESC 768
(Well 7)
Certificate 87558 (not
exceed (nte) 12.07 cfs)
(Big Falls Ranch)
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
Certificate 88028 (nte
0.54 cfs) (Big Falls
Ranch)
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
--Well not
included--
Certificate 88224 (nte
0.73 cfs) (Big Falls
Ranch)
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
Included, rate
not distributed
--Well not
included--
Certificate 75762 (nte
3.86 cfs) (Deschutes
Valley Farms)
0.54 cfs (well
specific rate)
--Well not
included--
--Well not
included--
--Well not
included--
Certificate 76373 (nte
3.91 cfs) (Deschutes
Valley Farms)
0.26 cfs (well
specific rate)
--Well not
included--
--Well not
included--
--Well not
included--
Theoretical total rate
authorized from well
(stacked to include SW)
24.14 cfs 10.73 cfs 10.73 cfs 22.07 cfs
Ground Water Review Form Transfer Application: T-12651
Page 2 of 5 Last Revised: 04/20/2015
2. Will the proposed POA develop the same aquifer (source) as the existing authorized POA?
Yes No Comments: per 690-380-2130(3).
3. a) Is there more than one source developed under the right (e.g., basalt and alluvium)?
Yes No
b) If yes, estimate the portion of the right supplied by each of the sources and describe any
limitations that will need to be placed on the proposed change (rate, duty, etc.):
4. a) Will this proposed change, at its maximum allowed rate of use, likely result in an increase
in interference with another ground water right?
Yes No Comments: Certificates 75762 and 76373 both authorize production out
of Well 1 (DESC 2100) and are both owned by Deschutes Valley Farms. Certificates 87558,
88028, and 7224 also authorize production out of Well 1, but are owned by the applicant
(Big Falls Ranch).
b) If yes, would this proposed change, at its maximum allowed rate of use, likely result in
another groundwater right not receiving the water to which it is legally entitled?
Yes No If yes, explain:
5. a) Will this proposed change, at its maximum allowed rate of use, likely result in an increase
in interference with another surface water source?
Yes No Comments:
b) If yes, at its maximum allowed rate of use, what is the expected change in degree of
interference with any surface water sources resulting from the proposed change?
Stream: Minimal Significant
Stream: Minimal Significant
Provide context for minimal/significant impact:
6. What conditions or other changes in the application are necessary to address any potential
issues identified above:
7. Any additional comments: Well 1 (DESC 2100) has declined by an average of ~0.4 feet per
year between 2001 and 2017. The well originally had ~54 feet of water above the bottom of
the well. In 2017 there was ~47 feet of water above the bottom of the well. Water use
reporting (under Certificate 76373) shows 670.3 AF pumped from April through September
2016. The elevation of the Deschutes River at the nearest reach is ~2520 feet, approximately
20 feet below the current water-level in wells 1, 3 and 4.
Well 3 (DESC 2087) has declined by an average of ~0.4 feet per year between 2001 and
2017. Water use reporting (under Certificate 76373) shows 161.8 AF pumped from June
through August 2016.
Well 4 (DESC 2098) has declined by an average of ~0.4 feet per year between 2001 and
2017. Water use reporting (under Certificate 76373) shows 911.2 AF pumped from April
through August 2016.
Well 7 (DESC 768) has declined by an average of ~0.5 feet per year between 2001 and
2017. Water use reporting (under Certificate 76373) shows 0 AF pumped from through
August 2016. The elevation of the Deschutes River at the nearest reach is ~2455,
approximately 25 feet below the current water-level in Well 7.
Ground Water Review Form Transfer Application: T-12651
Page 3 of 5 Last Revised: 04/20/2015
References:
Application file: T-12651.
Gannett, Marshall W., Lite, Kenneth E. Jr., Morgan, David S., and Collins, Charles A., 2001, Ground-Water
Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 00-4162.
Gannett, Marshall W., and Lite, Kenneth E. Jr., 2004, Simulation of the Regional Ground-Water Flow in the
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4195.
Lite, Kenneth E. Jr., and Gannett, Marshall W., 2002, Geologic Framework of the Regional Ground-Water
Flow System in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 02-4015.
OWRD Well Log database and groundwater-level data.
Ground Water Review Form Transfer Application: T-12651
Page 4 of 5 Last Revised: 04/20/2015
Ground Water Review Form Transfer Application: T-12651
Page 5 of 5 Last Revised: 04/20/2015
E‐PUR Safe Water for All®
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 5 in transfer application T‐13749 by BFR
