DOCSLIB.ORG

The Deschutes River Basin - Seeing Things Whole

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Deschutes River Basin - Seeing Things Whole THE DESCHUTES RIVER BASIN - SEEING THINGS WHOLE W a A “WHALE” O F A V IEW 1 rm 2,238cfs 75cfs , M S 4,430cfs 4 e S p 5 to h ri W Groundwater Recharge Zone it n h 6 liu ik g it If you use your imagination, part c s e s e fs R R R R of the map below looks a bit like Annual Estimated . a whale swimming off the page. Squaw Creek Groundwater Recharge S p So when Bob Main, former ri n F g 114cfs Central Oregon Watermaster in Cascades = 3800 cfs a R ll R iv e iv r Tumalo Creek created the map, it was aptly e r THE m m Bend Feed named “The Blue Whale”. It is a a a 6cfs D D Canal e p i r u graphic model of the various i i a k Tumalo Feed Canal r c i Little Lava P W flows throughout the Deschutes e CHALLENGES Crescent n Lake a r Basin, with the width of the river Lake C corresponding to actual river Crescent Creek REACH BY REACH . r. r. r. flow in cubic feet per second R R p s n C C A C N N S u S s is rn en or or w k lt in p n v ol tr th th al e (cfs) at the times noted. u u e w a d al U C le Q e C O y C h ro D ni an C re S B an re t M C Big Marsh Creek al go al an ai al r t Little Deschutes River n n e u C C UPPER DESCHUTES iv ro 1 an an s T al al R f d 249cfs e c Walker Basin Canal k 5 REACH BY REACH - o 4 High summer flows ro ,2 IT’S THE C 1 Groundwater Discharge Zone Low winter flows GROUNDWATER Water Quality issues Potential Endangered The Deschutes is talked about in Species Act issues three distinct parts, called reaches. The “Upper Deschutes” is considered from the Upper Deschutes Middle Deschutes Lower Deschutes 2 MIDDLE DESCHUTES headwaters to the north Average Winter Flow = 20 - 500 Cfs Winter Flow = 450 - 1200 Cfs Winter Flow = 3750 - 4500 Cfs diversion dam in Bend. The Low summer flows “Middle” reach is from the north Average Summer Flow = 1800 - 2000 Cfs Summer Flow = 30 - 75 Cfs Summer Flow = 3750 - 4500 Cfs diversion to Lake Billy Chinook, Average Natural Flow = 1404 Cfs At Benham Falls Gauge Natural Flow = 1350 Cfs Natural Flow = 4533 Cfs At Madras Gauge Water Quality issues and the “Lower” reach is from 5800 Cfs 100 Year Average At Moody Fish passage issues there to it’s terminus at the Crescent Potential Endangered Columbia. Each reach has its Lake own story to tell and opportunity Species Act issues for enhancement. About half of Dam re-licensing issues Cultus c f s = Cubic Feet Per Second the surface water flows in the Lake lower reach come from Our Measure of Success groundwater discharge near Wickiup 3 LOWER DESCHUTES 1 2 3 One cfs is the equivalent of Lake Billy Chinook. Most of this Res. 7.48 gallons of water flowing groundwater enters the aquifer Crane Lava Lakes Scenic Waterway flows in the high Cascades. Prairie each second or 646,000 gallons (protected in-stream Res. per day. Metolius River flows) A CHOICE OF Sisters Potential Endangered Species Act issues FLOWS - “ALTERED” S qu Benham Falls aw Water Quality issues OR “MORE NATURAL” Cre G ek Lake Billy As you can see, the summer Chinook Warm CROOKED RIVER flows are very altered from the La Pine G G G Springs 4 natural flows (shown as cross- (AND OTHER MAJOR hatching). Historical diversions TRIBUTARIES THAT have created the opportunity for = AUGUST AVERAGE STREAMFLOW Bend ENTER THE DESCHUTES) restoration of flows in the middle Madras ver Low flows / winter and section of the river and various = AVERAGE NATURAL FLOW Redmond tributaries by doing conservation d Ri Maupin summer projects applied to the current oke Moody = AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIONS Sherars Water Quality issues system of open, leaky canals Cro Falls G and antiquated delivery systems. Co ESA related issues This presents a great opportunity = GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AREA 4 lu Habitat change m for conservation and possible bi = GROUNDWATER RECHARGE a reallocation of some of the water Ri while still providing for productive ve agriculture and restoration of G = GAUGING STATION r ek flows in our basin for fish, wildlife Cre and scenic qualities so important ut Prineville Tro to the Deschutes Basin. Res..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volcanic Vistas Discover National Forests in Central Oregon Summer 2009 Celebrating the Re-Opening of Lava Lands Visitor Center Inside
    Volcanic Vistas Discover National Forests in Central Oregon Summer 2009 Celebrating the re-opening of Lava Lands Visitor Center Inside.... Be Safe! 2 LAWRENCE A. CHITWOOD Go To Special Places 3 EXHIBIT HALL Lava Lands Visitor Center 4-5 DEDICATED MAY 30, 2009 Experience Today 6 For a Better Tomorrow 7 The Exhibit Hall at Lava Lands Visitor Center is dedicated in memory of Explore Newberry Volcano 8-9 Larry Chitwood with deep gratitude for his significant contributions enlightening many students of the landscape now and in the future. Forest Restoration 10 Discover the Natural World 11-13 Lawrence A. Chitwood Discovery in the Kids Corner 14 (August 4, 1942 - January 4, 2008) Take the Road Less Traveled 15 Larry was a geologist for the Deschutes National Forest from 1972 until his Get High on Nature 16 retirement in June 2007. Larry was deeply involved in the creation of Newberry National Volcanic Monument and with the exhibits dedicated in 2009 at Lava Lands What's Your Interest? Visitor Center. He was well known throughout the The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests are a recre- geologic and scientific communities for his enthusiastic support for those wishing ation haven. There are 2.5 million acres of forest including to learn more about Central Oregon. seven wilderness areas comprising 200,000 acres, six rivers, Larry was a gifted storyteller and an ever- 157 lakes and reservoirs, approximately 1,600 miles of trails, flowing source of knowledge. Lava Lands Visitor Center and the unique landscape of Newberry National Volcanic Monument. Explore snow- capped mountains or splash through whitewater rapids; there is something for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Juniper Expansion on Adjacent Disturbed and Near-Relict Sites
    Western juniper expansion on adjacent disturbed and near-relict sites By: Peter T. Soulé and Paul A. Knapp Soulé, P.T., and Knapp, P.A. (1999) Western juniper expansion on adjacent disturbed and near-relict sites. Journal of Range Management 52(5):525-533. Made available courtesy of Society for Range Management: http://www.rangelands.org/ ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the Society for Range Management. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Abstract: We determined rates of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp. occidentalis Hook.) density and cover change during the period 1951 to 1994 at 3 adjacent sites with nearly identical elevation, slope, aspect, soils, plant communities, and climate, but different land-use histories. The 3 sites are located in central Oregon at the confluence of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Two of the sites are typical of central Oregon rangelands in that they have a history of anthropogenic disturbance including active fire suppression and domestic livestock grazing. The third site is a relict mesa that is a protected Research Natural Area and has experienced minimal anthropogenic impacts. We used large scale aerial photography to determine cover and density of western juniper in 1951, 1956, 1961, 1972, 1982, and 1994. We found that western juniper density and cover during the last 4 decades increased at all sites, with changes on the relict site similar to those on one of the disturbed sites. We suggest that even though 2 of the traditionally cited causes of western juniper expansion since the late 1800s (altered fire regimes, domestic livestock grazing) may have contributed to expansion on our disturbed sites, these mechanisms can not explain expansion on the near-relict mesa.
    [Show full text]
  • DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026-EA BLM Beach Site
    BLM Beach EA Number: DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026-EA Date of Preparation: September, 2010 Deschutes Resource Area, Prineville, Oregon BLM Beach EA # DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026 Contents CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... I LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................II 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................1 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................9 1.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .......................................................9 1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS .................................................................................................................11 2.0 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................12 2.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL .................................................12 2.2 ALTERNATIVES AND ACTION ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION ........................................21
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Lake Billy Chinook Water Quality Study Results
    2015 LAKE BILLY CHINOOK WATER QUALITY STUDY RESULTS Prepared for Deschutes River Alliance by Rick Hafele - February 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .............................................................. ii Introduction ............................................................................. 1 Survey Methods....................................................................... 3 Results....................................................................................... 7 Discussion .............................................................................. 18 References ................................................................................ 23 Appendix A ............................................................................. 24 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Deschutes River Alliance thanks Greg McMillan, Rick Hafele, and Larry Marxer for their many hours of volunteer work to collect the water quality data contained in this report. Larry Marxer deserves a special thanks for developing and writing the monitoring plan, organizing equipment, and making sure proper procedures were followed throughout this project. In addition a special thanks to the Oregon Wildlife Foundation and Fly Fishers Club of Oregon for providing critical funding needed for this study, and the Freshwater Trust their helpful comments. Last, thanks to all those not mentioned here who care about the Deschutes River and have contributed hours of their time to better understand the river’s changing ecology, and to all those who have provided
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Billy Chinook Rainbow (Redband) Trout Life History Study — Final Report
    Lake Billy Chinook Rainbow (Redband) Trout Life History Study — Final Report Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2030 Prepared for Portland General Electric Company by Kristy Groves Dr. Barbara Shields Alex Gonyaw Oregon State University December 1999 Final Report draft 4.doc 12/16/99 Table of Contents List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................viii Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2 1. Inter-Relationships among Redband Trout (Sub) Populations .............................. 2 2. Differences in Biological Characteristics of (Sub) Populations............................. 3 3. Diet and Prey Studies ............................................................................................. 3 4. Densities of Juvenile Redband Trout ..................................................................... 3 5. Future Genetic Studies ........................................................................................... 3 Study Area.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crooked River Restoration
    9/27/2019 Crooked River ‐ Native Fish Society Region: Oregon District: Mid-Columbia Summary The Crooked River, in central Oregon, is a large tributary to the Deschutes River. It runs for approximately 155 miles and the basin drains nearly 4,300 square miles. Native Species Spring Chinook Salmon Summer Steelhead Redband Trout Bull-trout-esa-listed The Crooked River The Crooked River has three major headwater tributaries, the North Fork, South Fork, and Beaver Creek which join to make the mainstem as it flows through Paulina Valley. Further down, Bowman Dam, creates Prineville Reservoir. Below Bowman, eight miles of the river are designated Wild and Scenic as it traverses a steep desert canyon. In Prineville it is joined by Ochoco Creek, soon to collect McKay Creek and several smaller tributaries. It empties into Lake Billy Chinook, a large impoundment on the Deschutes created by Round Butte Dam. This dam inundates nine miles of historic river channel. The Crooked River and its tributaries were once a major spawning ground for anadromous fish such as spring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead trout, and Pacific lamprey. Non-migratory fish such as Redband trout and Bull trout, as well as various non-game fish were also abundant. Fish populations began to drop in the early 19th century due to irrigation withdrawals. https://nativefishsociety.org/watersheds/crooked‐river 1 9/27/2019 Crooked River ‐ Native Fish Society The Cove Power Plant on the lower Crooked River, built around 1910, effectively blocked upriver migration of spring Chinook salmon during low stream flow conditions. In addition, Ochoco Dam, built in 1920 on Ochoco Creek, blocked fish passage completely.
    [Show full text]
  • Crooked River National Grassland
    2 States iiiient of d!ure I Service IC iwest 91 Part 2 Crooked River National Grassland Caring for the Land. .. Land and Resource Management Plan Preface Crooked River National Grassland August 1989 The Crooked River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Grassland Plan) was prepared in compliance with 36 CFR 219, based on the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and in compliance with 40 CFR 1500 based on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Because the Plan is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was pre- pared The Plan provides direction for implementing the preferred alternative selected in the EIS. If any particular provision of this Grassland Plan, or the application of the action to any person or circumstance,is found to beinvalid, the remainder of the Forest Plan and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Additional information about the Plan is available from: Forest Supervisor Ochoco National Forest PO Box 490 Prineville, OR 97754 Earle Layser Ochoco National Forest PO Box 490 Prineville, OR 97754 Craig Conrtright Ochoco National Forest PO Box 490 Prineville, OR 97754 CROOKED RIVER NATIONAL GRASSLAND PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Purpose ... ... 1-1 Relationship to Other Documents. .. ........ 1-2 Plan Structure ............ ..... .... .. 1-3 Grassland Description ......... ........ ... 1-4 CHAPTER 2 - THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Introduc~on................................................... 2-1 Resource Description and Supply/Demand Projections for Selected Resources ..
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6. Coastal Recovery Unit—Lower Deschutes River Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 6. Coastal Recovery Unit—Lower Deschutes River Critical Habitat Unit 253 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 6 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 6. Lower Deschutes River Critical Habitat Unit The Lower Deschutes River CHU is essential to the conservation of bull trout because populations here are genetically diverse; have diverse life history expressions including fluvial, adfluvial, and resident populations with extensive connectivity within and outside the CHU; and are the most robust in this part of the Mid-Columbia RU. The Deschutes River basin contains a variety of representative habitats, including high Cascade headwater streams, glacially fed streams, spring systems, lake habitat, and mainstem river habitat. Maintaining and recovering these populations will ensure conservation of adaptations to these unique habitats, and adequate redundancy within this basin and relative to adjacent core areas (e.g., Hood River, John Day River, etc.). Protecting and maintaining all five of the Deschutes River basin’s bull trout populations will help ensure the long-term viability of these bull trout by protecting a geographically widespread distribution of unique but related bull trout (see Appendix 1 for more detailed information). The Lower Deschutes River Critical Habitat Unit is located in Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook counties in central Oregon. The Deschutes River basin contains a variety of representative habitats including high Cascade headwater streams, glacially fed streams, spring systems, lakes, and mainstem river habitat. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS) own lands in this CHU.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Happening on the Deschutes River
    The Plain Facts What’s happening on the Deschutes River The Deschutes River system is an Oregon icon, treasured for its scenic beauty, the life-giving water it brings to the high desert, and its world-class salmon, steelhead and trout fisheries. But the river and its tributaries are more than that: they’re sacred to the people of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and an integral part of the culture and economy of the region. As co-owners of the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project, Portland General Electric and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs pay close attention to the health of the river. We know that apparent changes to the Deschutes — some good, some troubling — have raised questions among river users in the region, so we want to share what we know about what’s happening on the Deschutes. This pamphlet addresses some of the concerns and misconceptions we’ve heard. The information is based on robust and high quality scientific studies. You can find more at portlandgeneral.com/deschutes. We also welcome questions at [email protected] or 541-325-0960. Management You may have heard: The plain fact is… The Deschutes River is in The Deschutes River is not in decline. a state of rapid decline. • River temperatures have returned to their historic, seasonal patterns. • Fall Chinook are migrating and returning more successfully than any time since the 1960s. • Redband trout populations and their insect food sources remain robust. • The latest Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife angler surveys — from 2018 and previous years — have shown excellent catch rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Brothers Grazing Management Program Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management District Office PO. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon of the OF LAND MANAGEMENT Prineville District Office P.O. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon 97754 Enclosed for your review and comment is the Brothers Grazing Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The statement analyzes the-impacts which would result from the proposed livestock management program and four alternatives. The purpose of the statement is to disclose the probable environmental impacts for consideration along with economic and technical information in the decisionmaking process. Comments concerning the adequacy of this statement will be considered in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement. The comment period will end June Informal discussion sessions intended to assist you in reviewing and commenting on the draft EIS will be held at 7:00 p.m., May 251982, at St. Joseph’s Parish Hall, 150 East First St., Prineville, Oregon and at 7:00 p.m., May 26, 1982, at the Bend Riverhouse Motor Inn, 3075 North Highway 97, Bend, Oregon. Bureau of Land Management personnel will be available at both sessions to answer questions regarding the draft EIS analysis. The draft EIS may be incorporated into the final EIS by reference only. The final EIS then would consist of public comments and responses and any needed changes of the draft. Therefore, please retain this Draft EIS for use with the final. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be considered in the decision process, even though they may be too late be specifically addressed in the final environmental impact statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Quail Translocations in Eastern Oregon
    MOUNTAIN QUAIL TRANSLOCATIONS IN EASTERN OREGON Project Report: 2003 Rick Vetter 03 Michael Pope1, Faculty Research Associate Oregon State University Greg Jackle, Wildlife Biologist Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dave Budeau, Upland Game Bird Program Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dave Zalunardo, Wildlife Biologist Ochoco National Forest Contact Information: 1104 Nash Hall, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 Ph: 541-737-4908 Email: [email protected] 2 Executive Summary Mountain Quail populations have declined in many areas of the western Great Basin, particularly across former ranges in southeastern Washington, western Idaho, and eastern Oregon. Strategies for restoring declining wildlife populations have been largely reactive with recovery programs typically initiated only after populations or suitable habitats reached critically low levels. Restoration plans were often implemented without a clear understanding of the life-history or habitat requirements of a species. Griffith et al. (1989) suggested conducting research and testing restoration techniques on species before populations reached crisis levels. Mountain Quail are an excellent candidate for translocations given the criteria proposed by Griffith et al. (1989). This species is highly productive with large clutches (10-12 eggs/clutch), and has a highly varied, mostly herbivorous diet. Currently, western Oregon has abundant and easily accessible populations of Mountain Quail that could be a source for re-establishing or supplementing populations in areas of eastern Oregon where populations are rare or have been extirpated. In 2001, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Game Bird Program at Oregon State University initiated a Mountain Quail translocation and research program for eastern Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • John Day River RMP Final
    JOHN DAY RIVER PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN, TWO RIVERS AND JOHN DAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT JOHN DAY RIVER PLAN AND EIS Comment Period Ending 3/03/00 Table of Contents Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS .......................................................................................................................1 Redmond, Oregon.....................................................................................................................................1 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................1 Salem, Oregon2 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................2 Clackamas, Oregon ..................................................................................................................................4 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................4 Fossil, Oregon6 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................6 John Day, Oregon ......................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]