Environmental Assessment in Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Other Relevant Federal and State Laws and Regulations

Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment

Forest Ryan Ranch Restoration Project Service

August 2014 Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest,

Deschutes County, Oregon

Township 19 South, Range 11 East, NW of the SW Section 4

Contact: Responsible Official: Peter Sussmann Kevin Larkin Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District District Ranger 63095 Deschutes Market Rd Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, (541) 383-5594 63095 Deschutes Market Rd [email protected] Bend, OR 97701

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Background ...... 3 Location ...... 4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 5 Decision Framework ...... 8 Management Direction...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 9 Issues ...... 11 Alternatives ...... 14 Alternatives considered but eliminated ...... 14 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 14 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 15 Project Design Features ...... 27 Monitoring ...... 30 Environmental Consequences ...... 30 Geology and Groundwater ...... 31 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 52 Cultural Resources ...... 66 Scenic Quality______...... 68 Recreation______...... 71 Fisheries ...... 75 Wildlife ...... 81 Botany ...... 138 Invasive Plants ...... 140 Soil Quality ...... 145 Other Disclosures ...... 150 Consultation and Coordination ...... 151 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 151 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 152 References ...... 152 Appendices ...... 154 Appendix A: Water Rights...... 154 Appendix B: Summary List of Questions and Concerns ...... 155 Appendix C: Response to Comments ...... 160 Appendix D: Groundwater Well Monitoring Data ...... 195

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 759-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has prepared the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows: • Background and Location: The section includes information on the history and location of the project proposal.

• Purpose and Need: The section includes the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need.

• Public Involvement: This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by other agencies, other users, and the public.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and the No Action Alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the action alternatives that follow.

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers as well as agencies and individuals or businesses consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Office in Bend, Oregon.

Background ______The Upper Deschutes River is currently designated as a Wild and Scenic river and managed to maintain the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of resources identified in the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (UDWSR, 1996). River flows are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) to deliver water stored behind Wickiup Dam to downstream irrigation users within the Deschutes Basin. These flows fluctuate drastically between the summer irrigation season (April to October) and the winter storage season, which has changed the historically more stable natural hydrograph of the river and created flow regimes capable of eroding the river banks and affecting the morphology of the river channel. Ryan Ranch is one of many slough floodplains along the Upper Deschutes that was historically connected to the Deschutes River prior to dam construction. However, a man-made berm structure paralleling the river has prevented the river from accessing this slough for over 80 years and constricted the river along this reach. A steady cycle of riverbank erosion has created steep cutbanks and bank elevations that are too

high above water levels to support sedge and willow species capable of holding the banks in place. Nickpoints along this reach have compromised the Deschutes River Trail on the berm, and the existing hydrologic conditions in the slough basin are helping to spread the invasive species reed canarygrass. The river bank along Ryan Ranch continues to be actively eroded and a breach through the berm is imminent in the foreseeable future. In order to pro-actively address these issues, the Forest Service (USFS) is proposing to establish a surface connection between the river and the slough floodplain at Ryan Ranch and re-build and restore the actively eroding riverbank. Data and observations from numerous geoprobe and auger holes, cased monitoring wells and a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey have helped the USFS to better understand the stratigraphy, volume and hydrologic dynamics of the groundwater system within the Ryan Ranch basin. The existing groundwater dynamics within the basin are summarized in this Environmental Assessment (EA) and were used to analyze the potential for water loss associated with implementing the Ryan Ranch Restoration project. The USFS is collaborating with Irrigation Districts associated with the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) to restore the free-flowing characteristics of the river without affecting the delivery of water to downstream users. The potential harm to, or infringement on the water rights of downstream users and stored water contracts of Irrigation Districts were considered during the analysis this project. As the landowner of the project area, the USFS interprets that it has the responsibility for addressing deteriorating bank conditions and impacts to the free-flowing characteristics of a river designated as Wild and Scenic.

Location ______The Ryan Ranch restoration project area is located on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest approximately seven miles southwest of the city of Bend, Oregon (Figure 1). The site is immediately upstream of Dillon Falls along the Deschutes River (T19S, R11E, Section 4) and is referred to as Ryan Ranch Meadow on the Benham Falls 7.5 Minute USGS quadrangle. The project is within the Upper Deschutes 8th-Field Subbasin (17070301), the Pilot Butte 10th-Field Watershed (1707030104) and the Benham Falls 12th-Field Subwatershed (170703010403). The project area includes a portion of the Deschutes River Trail and is within the boundaries of the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

Figure 1 - Location Map for the Ryan Ranch Restoration Project on the Deschutes National Forest, approximately 7 miles southwest of Bend, Oregon.

Purpose and Need for Action ______The primary purpose of the Ryan Ranch Restoration project is to restore the deteriorating banks of the Deschutes River and the hydrologic function of a natural slough floodplain at Ryan Ranch. There is a need to restore riparian and stream channel conditions associated with the riparian goals of the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH, 1995) that are currently compromised along this reach. A berm constructed in the 1920s and modified in 1947 constricts the river channel and prevents it from accessing a natural slough floodplain. The river is actively eroding the bank and berm structure at numerous nick points along this reach, some of which have forced the temporary re-location of the Deschutes River Trail, a major recreation feature in the area (Figure 2). Appreciable amounts of riverbank have been lost and observed rates of erosion indicate that the river would eventually breach the berm and trail within the foreseeable future if no restoration or stabilization activities occurred. As a result, there is a need to proactively restore the riverbank and floodplain hydrology and maintain access through the area on the Deschutes River Trail.

Figure 2. Active bank erosion (left) and nickpoint (right) compromising the Deschutes River Trail.

The Upper Deschutes River is a designated Wild and Scenic waterway that is managed to comply with the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified in the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (UDWSR, 1996). Existing erosion along the riverbank and large boulder stabilization structures installed in the late 1970s on other nick points do not meet the ecological and visual standards for a designated Wild and Scenic River Corridor, respectively (Figure 3). As a result, there is a need to restore the bank of the Deschutes River in a manner that complies with the ORVs of the UDWSR.

Figure 3. Ryan Ranch nickpoint in 1976 (left) and large boulder stabilization structure installed in 1978 (right)

The berm structure in place at Ryan Ranch has altered the elevation and vegetative composition of the riverbank. Erosional loss has created a steep cut bank with elevations that are too high above water levels to remain saturated through the growing season and incapable of supporting deeply rooted rhizomatous sedges. As a result, shallower rooted species that are less capable of resisting freeze/thaw and shear stresses currently populate the riverbank along Ryan Ranch. Other banks in the area that are located where the river is connected with a slough floodplain are lower in elevation, well vegetated with sedges and comparatively stable relative to the conditions at Ryan Ranch (Figure 4). There is a need to restore lower riverbank elevations along this reach in order to create a saturated rooting zone capable of supporting rhizomatous sedges and other native riparian species in accordance with the Riparian Goals of INFISH.

Figure 4. Reference bank conditions supporting sedges (left) and higher/drier bank conditions (right)

The berm structure at Ryan Ranch has also altered the hydrology of the adjacent slough floodplain by blocking the seasonal contribution of water from the river. This allows the water table to recede throughout the growing season and creates favorable conditions for the earlier flowered invasive species reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), which is out-competing native sedges and spreading across the basin (Figure 5). There is a need to restore the hydrologic conditions in the basin to that of a slough floodplain in order to favor native riparian species and limit the spread of invasive species.

Figure 5. Reed canarygrass (purple seed heads) expanding in Ryan Ranch

The Ryan Ranch basin is designated as a Key Elk Area under the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The current location of the Deschutes River Trail has created a recreational use pattern close to the river that the local elk herd is likely conditioned to and is highly valued by trail users. Physical and hydrologic changes following the proposed restoration would remove or saturate portions of the existing Deschutes River Trail. There is a need to re-design the trail tread through the restored wetland in a manner that maintains a recreational experience near the river and minimizes the disturbance to elk. As a result, the project proposes to combine constructed boardwalk and raised fill areas to provide a continued through route for the trail within 50 feet of its current location.

The Upper Deschutes River is currently managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) for the delivery of stored and natural flow waters to irrigation uses in the Deschutes Basin. Re- establishing river access to the Ryan Ranch slough floodplain has the potential to affect the water rights of downstream uses in the Deschutes Basin. As a result, there is a need to restore the ecological and hydrologic function of this system in such a manner that maintains the delivery of water to downstream uses in the Deschutes Basin and demonstrates that the restoration of ecological habitats along the Upper Deschutes River is compatible with the delivery and use of water for irrigation purposes.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible trails are limited on the Deschutes National Forest near the city of Bend. The proposed restoration creates an opportunity to expand educational features at the site by developing an ADA accessible interpretive trail. The proposed restoration provides an opportunity to develop an outdoor educational classroom and interpretative site close to the communities of Bend, Redmond and LaPine for local school children and the general public to interact with the ecological, restorative and irrigation components of the Upper Deschutes River. As a result, there is a need to improve the parking, access and restroom facilities at the site to accommodate the anticipated increase in use of this site by local school programs and the general public.

Decision Framework ______The District Ranger of the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District is the responsible official for this project. A decision on which alternative to implement and applicable mitigation measures will be based on the disclosure of environmental effects and the ability of the alternatives to address the purpose and need. It is within the prerogative of the decision maker to combine elements of different alternatives in the final decision in order to accomplish this.

Management Direction ______The Ryan Ranch project is within and adjacent to a reach of the Deschutes River designated as “Scenic” under the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Act of 1988 which amended the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The project area lies within Segment 4C as defined by the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (UDWSR, 1996). Activities proposed for this project are subject to Standards and Guidelines included in the UDWSR Comprehensive Management Plan. Direction includes site-specific analysis for consistency with the UDWSR Plan and a determination of any direct adverse effects to the scenic, recreational, fishery and wildlife values of the wild and scenic river under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Goals and objectives from the UDWSR Plan focus on the maintenance and enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the primary resources identified in the Plan. The 1990 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan (UDWSR, 1996) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) also provide standards and guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest and guide all natural resource management activities within the project area. Management Areas from the Deschutes LRMP are as follows: Management Area 17A - Wild and Scenic Rivers: All resource management activities are directed to protect and enhance the Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified in the Wild and Scenic Plan. ORVs for Geologic, Fishery, Wildlife, Scenic, Cultural, and Recreation resources are identified for Segment 4C. Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA) as designated by the Deschutes LRMP. Deschutes LRMP S&Gs WL-43, WL-44, WL-45 and WL-47 through WL-51 for elk are applicable to the project.

Public Involvement ______The Forest Service conducted internal and external scoping to identify concerns associated with the proposed activities. Scoping notices were sent to the Bend/Ft. Rock District’s mailing list on December 22, 2008. The project was included in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Deschutes National Forest and has been posted to the Central Oregon National Forest website. Field trips with other government agencies include the Bureau of Reclamation, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Division of State Lands, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal was also sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs Indian Reservation and the Oregon Water Resources Department. Field trips to the site have also included managers from the North Unit and Central Oregon Irrigation Districts and members of the Bend/LaPine School District. The initial proposal was presented to an OWRD Irrigation Managers meeting during the winter of 2009. A request for a formal audience with the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) and Irrigation District Boards was denied during the summer of 2010 and again during the early spring of 2011.

Thirteen comments responding to the initial scoping were received from individuals and organizations, including the Deschutes Basin Board of Control. The interdisciplinary team and the District Ranger reviewed the comment letters and have stored them in the project file. Comments received included support and concerns about the project from both public and private entities. The most notable concerns included the potential harm to the water rights of downstream uses through the loss of stored irrigation water being conveyed down the Deschutes River and the loss of access to the river for humans and dogs.

Comments from the DBBC included a number of items for which additional detail in planning or documentation was requested, including:

• That the DBBC and the State Watermaster be informed of the specific water elevation and equivalent river water flow rate necessary for water to access the floodplain basin through the proposed inlet channels.

• That there would be no special requests for changes to the operational management of the river in the event of river flow rates being below the amount necessary to enter the project area.

• That the DBBC be notified and consulted with before any species were planned to be artificially reintroduced into the wetlands project area.

Additional letters of concern were received from the DBBC and Arnold Irrigation District in March of 2010 after circumstantial evidence of water loss and levee improvements came to light during an interview of former Bureau of Reclamation Civil Engineer Harold “Bud” Sexton by former Deschutes Watermaster Bob Main. The DBBC letter officially raised objection to the proposal, stating:

• That the project will “only divert stored water….and waste water that has legally been allocated to our member districts, causing harm to our water rights and the water supply of our patrons”.

• That the belief by the USFS “that the meadow will not experience high seepage losses….should be supported by scientific and engineering evidence.”

• That the use of a Categorical Exclusion for the project is not warranted or acceptable”, and

• That the DBBC “will be compelled to seek injunctive relief….if the Forest Service goes forward with this project without obtaining and complying with a water right to do so”.

The Arnold Irrigation District letter dated March 22, 2010 included similar concerns and objections and a list of information needed to review the viability of the project proposal, including: • A detailed topographic survey of the meadow, riverbank and levee • A flow versus stage relationship curve for the river at the meadow • Details of the diversion structure • Calculations for evaporation losses • Estimates of seepage losses • Survey control and benchmark information • Documented history of the levee construction • Evidence of prior existence of ponds or channels in the meadow Two meetings were held between the Bend/Ft. Rock District Ranger, the project Interdisciplinary Team Leader and Irrigation District Managers from the North Unit, Central Oregon, Arnold and Tumalo Irrigation Districts during the NEPA process leading to the release of an EA for 30 day comment. The meetings were held on February 3rd and May 27th, 2010 to discuss the design of the project and issues of concern included in the comment letters. A summary list of issues and questions associated with the project raised in comment letters and these meetings was compiled by the USFS and sent to the Irrigation Districts on May 28th for their review. The Irrigation Districts responded to this request via e-mail with additional questions for the list. A summary of the questions are included in Appendix B of this document. An Environmental Assessment for the Ryan Ranch Restoration Project was released to the public for a 30 day comment period in September, 2010. Eleven comment letters were received and are included in the project record. Responses to relevant comments from these letters are included in Appendix D of this document. Separate meetings were held with local users of the Deschutes River Trail concerned with the loss of meadow habitat, a member of DogPac concerned with river fetch access for dogs, and Irrigation Managers from the DBBC contending that a water right was necessary for the project and that potential water losses could harm the water rights of downstream users. A subsequent meeting was held with Irrigation Managers and the local OWRD Deschutes watermaster Kyle Gorman on January 14th 2011 to strategize options for obtaining a short term supply of water through a Limited License Agreement to test the effects of the project on the delivery of water to downstream users. The DBBC sent a letter dated February 4th, 2011 notifying the Forest Service of their support for the project if a water right is obtained but declined to make stored water in Crane Prairie available for the project under a Limited License Agreement. A recommendation to consult with other users with stored water rights in the Deschutes Basin was included in the letter. The Forest Service met with the local OWRD watermaster and the members of the Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC) on March 17th 2011 to further strategize options for obtaining water under a Limited License Agreement for the project. Options for water included the release by OWRD of up to 350 acre- feet of water in years when there was an excess of decreed water rights stored in Crane Prairie. Internal USFS concerns regarding the implications of a Limited License Agreement signed by the USFS establishing a future water right prevented this option from proceeding and delayed a Decision Notice from being signed. Discussions with Irrigation District managers and OWRD to find a pathway on which to move forward with the Ryan Ranch project resumed in 2013. Irrigation District managers expressed interest in partnering with the USFS if their concerns with potential harm to downstream users could be addressed and if their participation could result in the generation of habitat mitigation credits from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) being developed by the DBBC under the auspices of the USFWS for species affected by their operations, including the Oregon spotted frog. Meetings with the Irrigation Managers during the summer of 2013 resulted in the development and addition of the Adaptive Management Alternative 4 to the EA. This alternative includes a Pilot phase in which an agreed upon amount of surface water from the Deschutes River would be allowed to temporarily enter the Ryan Ranch slough floodplain under a Limited License Agreement signed by a member(s) of the DBBC and authorized by OWRD. Temporary culverts would be designed and installed to allow surface water to enter the Ryan Ranch basin and be monitored for seepage losses. The future build out of the restoration project would be determined by the outcome of the water dynamics monitored in existing groundwater wells during the Pilot Phase. Three different outcome scenarios (Options A, B and C) are included and analyzed in the EA under Alternative 4.

Issues ______Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects that may occur as a result of a proposed action. They provide focus for the analysis and are identified as key issues if they may influence the development of alternatives. Internal and external concerns raised during scoping were used to help distinguish between key issues and analysis issues associated with the proposal. Most of the questions compiled in Appendix B have been incorporated into the environmental analysis as analysis issues and are addressed under the technical and social analysis section of this document. Specific concerns received from the Deschutes Basin Board of Control included:

• Assurance that the water volume removed from the Deschutes River can be measured or reasonably and accurately determined during the April to October time frame.

• Water entering the meadow after April 1st under the proposed design would be “stored” water with a water right held by the Irrigation Districts.

• No water rights were being acquired for water entering the slough basin.

• The possible presence of areas of localized water loss or “sinkholes” within the project area.

The following key issues were identified during the public scoping process:

Key Issue #1: The Proposed Action would inundate the slough with “stored” versus “natural” flow waters during the irrigation season.

Issue Statement: The designed elevations of the proposed inlet/outlet channels may not be accessed by the river in average water years until river discharge levels included “stored” water released from Wickiup Dam for irrigation use. Measurement: Acre feet of “stored” vs “natural” water entering the slough basin The issue is complex in nature since stored and natural waters are co-mingled during the irrigation season. An alternative was originally developed to lower the elevation of the inlet/outlet channels to

allow the river to begin accessing the Ryan Ranch slough basin earlier in the spring before stored water was released from Wickiup Dam. However, Irrigation Districts were not supportive of this alternative. Alternative 4 was developed to respond to comments and concerns from the Irrigation Districts and includes the use of natural flow waters to inundate the slough basin as part of a Pilot Project. The outcome of the Pilot phase would be used to determine the build out options for the project through an adaptive management approach.

Key Issue #2: Inundation of the Ryan Ranch slough basin could result in additional water loss from the Upper Deschutes river delivery system.

Issue Statement: The re-introduction of river water to the Ryan Ranch floodplain could result in a measurable loss of water from the river system before it reaches the Irrigation District inlets near the city of Bend, possibly affecting junior Water Rights holders during low water years. Measurement: Volume of water (cubic feet per second) measured as “loss” through evaporation, groundwater re-charge, seepage and transpiration. This issue has also led to the development of the adaptive management alternative to the Proposed Action. Although monitoring of groundwater levels and analysis of the sediment and bedrock stratigraphy within the slough basin indicates a high probability for groundwater re-charge and minimal seepage to deeper aquifers, the dynamics of the groundwater system cannot be fully tested until water is added and wells are monitored (see Groundwater and Hydrology analysis included in the Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences section of this document). Groundwater wells are in place to monitor the dynamics of groundwater within the basin following the addition of surface water from the river. The Pilot Project will help determine the fate of surface water added to the slough basin and three adaptive management restoration build out scenarios are possible depending on the outcome of this test. Project Design Criteria included for both action alternatives are intended to further reduce the risk that river levels at irrigation inlets downstream of Ryan Ranch would be affected.

The following issues were identified during the public scoping and public involvement process and determined to be analysis issues. Analysis issues are important for providing the Responsible Official with complete information about the effects of the project.

1. Issue: Ownership authority of the berm structure in place. Issue Statement: Record of the construction of the berm structure has not been clearly established, which may bring into question the ownership and administrative authority of the structure. Resolution of this issue indicating control or ownership by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) could affect the implementation of the project. To date, efforts to recover official BOR records associated with early Reclamation projects on the Upper Deschutes River have produced no documents associated with the construction of the berm structure. The Chain of Title shows possession of the deed to the land by the U.S. Forest Service when improvements were made to the berm structure by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1947. Complete analysis of this issue is included in the Environmental Consequences section under Cultural Resources on pages 29-30.

2. Issue: Water Rights (2a) Movement of water out of the Deschutes River channel could require a water right under Oregon Water Law. Issue Statement: Inundation of the slough basin above “natural” river discharge levels could result in the movement of “stored” water with associated water rights held by the North Unit Irrigation District or other junior water rights holders out of the river channel. Stored water removed from the river between April 1st and Oct 31st could be inconsistent with the terms of NUIDs contract with the BOR and could be a violation/breach of that contract. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has officially notified the Forest Service that the Ryan Ranch project would require a water right due to the potential for harm to the water rights of downstream users. The USFS and DBBC have explored options to account for the water under state regulations, including the temporary inundation by an agreed upon amount of natural flow water through a limited license agreement signed by the DBBC. Water dynamics in Ryan Ranch would be monitored following inundation to validate the amount of potential water loss identified in this analysis. A summary analysis of this issue is included in Appendix A of this document. Long-term water accounting under state regulations if losses are deemed practicable/acceptable could be an adjustment of the river delivery loss amounts calculated by the OWRD, which is currently a loss of approximately 7% of the river volume between Benham Falls and the irrigation outlets near the city of Bend.

(2b) Water rights of existing holders may be impacted if federally listed Wildlife or Plant species colonize habitat created by the project.

No active introduction of federally listed Wildlife or Plant species was included as a part of the proposed action or other alternatives for this project. However, the project would create habitat for the Oregon spotted frog, a candidate species proposed for listing as threatened by USF&W in September 2013, if the slough basin is re-connected to the river. The DBBC is currently developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that includes the Oregon spotted frog and is amenable to partnering with the USFS on projects that create habitat for this species and may provide mitigation credits for their operations. The excavation of deeper holes within the basin for overwintering spotted frog habitat has been added to the Adaptive Management build out scenarios determined by the outcome of the Pilot Project under Alternative 4.

3. Issue: Pre-dam river and slough interactions Issue Statement: Indications of natural inlet channels at Ryan Ranch that would have allowed the Deschutes River to access the slough basin prior to construction of the upstream dams are questioned.

Three historic inlet/outlet channels between the river and the slough basin are apparent on the ground at the site and in aerial photographs (see Figures 9 and 13). Natural flows of the river below Benham Falls prior to the construction of upstream dams were consistently above 1,500 cfs throughout the year and sufficient to access these channels during any month of the year. Analysis of this issue is included in the Existing Condition section of Surface Water under the Hydrology section on page 47.

Additional components of the various environmental resources affected by the project were determined to be analysis issues and are considered in the Environmental Consequences section of this document. These include:

o Water Quality o Cultural Resources o Wild and Scenic River Outstanding Remarkable Values o Scenic Quality o Wildlife: Management Indicator Species Habitat o Wildlife: Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species o Aquatic Species and Fish Habitat o Invasive Plant Species o Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species o Soil Quality o Social uses and recreational experiences

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives considered but eliminated A re-route of the Deschutes River Trail around the meadow basin was included in the original Proposed Action sent out for public scoping. Internal field review of this option raised potentially negative impacts on the wildlife and archeology resources that would be difficult to mitigate. As a result, this option was dropped from the analysis in favor of the boardwalk or berm locations included in the action alternatives.

The use of boulder rip-rap to stabilize the existing riverbank and reinforce the berm structure was considered during the initial development of the Proposed Action. Concerns for the impacts to the visual ORVs included in the Wild and Scenic River Plan and the free flowing characteristics of a Wild and Scenic River were determined to be substantial enough to drop this alternative from the analysis.

Comparison of Alternatives ______Four alternatives were considered and analyzed for the restoration, recreation and education components proposed as part of the Ryan Ranch Restoration Project: Alternative 1 - No Action, Alternative 2 - the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 - Revised Water Inundation and Alternative 4 – Pilot Phase and Adaptive Management. Alternative 3 was developed to respond to Key Issue #1 and Alternative 4 was developed to respond to Key Issues #1 and #2.

A comparison of the alternatives analyzed in this EA is displayed in Table 1. The analysis summary compares the effects to the Hydrologic resource based on the amount of Natural versus Stored water that would enter the slough basin (see definition in footnote below Table 1), and also includes the length and

period of that inundation. The differences in effects to other resources are less distinct between the action alternatives and summarized in the effects analysis included in the Environmental Consequences section.

The analysis shows that Alternative 3 could allow up to five times as much water (approximately 50% of the above ground volume) to enter the basin prior to the release of irrigation flows from Wickiup Dam (April 15th). However, there would be no difference in the total and type of water entering the basin each year between the action alternatives (see the Hydrology Effects section for details on this analysis). Alternative 3 would allow nearly twice as much water to return to the river after October 15th compared to alternatives 2 and 4.

Table 1. Comparison summary between alternatives of effects associated with Key Issue #1 Measurement (Key Issue Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 4 Alternative 3 #1) Total acre feet (ac-ft) of 0 365 ac-ft 365 ac-ft water affected Acre feet1 of natural/stored2 0 140/55 ac-ft 140/55 ac-ft water in above ground pool3 Acre feet of natural/stored 0 100/70 ac-ft 100/70 ac-ft water evaporated from pool Length of Inundation 0 April 15th - October 31st March 15th - October 15th Amount of water entering 0 0 20 ac-ft slough before April 1st Amount of water entering 0 20 ac-ft 82 ac-ft slough before April 15th Amount of surface water returning to the river after 0 75 ac-ft 135 ac-ft October 15th

1One acre/foot is the volume of water covering one acre of land with one foot of water. Total acre feet of water listed for each alternative may vary by the amount of water needed to re-charge groundwater to the surface each year.

2 Natural vs Stored water: Natural water is considered 100% of water contained in river discharges up to 1,500 cfs at the Benham Falls gage, which is equal to the natural river flows calculated by the Oregon Water Resources Department from 30 year base period data (1958 to 1987) in the Deschutes Basin. Stored water is generally considered the percentage of water contained in river discharges that exceed the natural river flow during the six month irrigation season.

3 The total above ground volume of the slough basin is 195 acre/feet of water at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs (water elevation of 4042.8 feet). Annual evaporative loss from a pool of standing water with a surface area of 70 acres at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs is an estimated 170 ac/ft (See the Geology and Hydrology Effects Analysis) Alternatives Considered in Detail ______Alternative 1 - No Action

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the No Action alternative forms a basis for describing and comparing the effects of the proposed action. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. There would be no restoration of the riverbanks along Ryan Ranch, surface water from the river would not be re-connected to

the floodplain in the Ryan Ranch basin, and no recreational or educational improvements would occur at the site. As such, there is no agreement in place with any of the Irrigation Districts for maintenance of the berm structure at Ryan Ranch and the responsibility for preventing the river from breaching the berm on its own or addressing the repercussions of a natural breach lies with the USFS.

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The Proposed Action for the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration project includes restoration, recreation, education and infrastructural components described in this section. The project proposes to reconnect the Deschutes River with a natural floodplain in the Ryan Ranch basin by re-connecting 1 to 3 historic inlet/outlet channels through an existing berm structure that has blocked the river from the floodplain for 90 plus years. Annual surface flow of water between the Deschutes River and the Ryan Ranch basin would seasonally inundate approximately 65 acres of National Forest System land that historically provided wetland slough habitat suitable for many species of flora and fauna. The project also proposes to restore the integrity of the river bank by constructing new bank and lowering the elevation of the existing berm structure; relocate sections of the Deschutes River Trail displaced by the restoration; improve parking and access facilities; and develop an Outdoor Educational classroom and American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible interpretive loop trail at the site (Figures 4a and 4b).

Restoration: Restoration actions would reconnect the surface hydrology of the Deschutes River to a natural floodplain slough basin through up to three historic inlet/outlet channels. The channels would be returned to an elevation replicating their historic conditions, which has been referenced to a river discharge level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Benham Falls gage. Approximately 0.3 miles of existing riverbank, including portions of the existing berm, would be lowered to elevations referenced from other slough/inlet channel systems along this reach of the river. New riverbank would be constructed with toe-wood log structures and stabilized with transplanted sedge mats and other riparian vegetation (Figure 5).

Recreation: Proposed activities associated with recreation resources would construct approximately 600 feet of boardwalk and approximately 800 feet of new surface trail to replace approximately 0.25 miles of the Deschutes River Trail displaced by the restoration activities. The new trail sections located on the ground would be enhanced by 1 to 2 feet of fill and two separate spans of boardwalk would cross deeper sections of the wetland (see Figure 4a).

Education: Additional trail and boardwalk would be constructed as part of the educational and interpretive components of the project. A barrier free interpretive loop trail would be constructed comprised of existing trail on the berm converted to ADA trail tread (690 feet), new boardwalk (410 feet) and new ADA surface trail (1,155 feet). The interpretive loop trail would combine improved and re- located sections of the Deschutes River trail with new trail sections to complete a 0.5 mile ADA accessible loop trail connected to two pullout/parking areas. Interpretive signs would be installed along the loop and river trail (see Figure 4b).

Infrastructure: Two existing pullout/parking areas would be re-defined and improved to accommodate ADA access and anticipated increases in use of the area. The surface of existing pull through parking would be improved, two ADA accessible parking spaces would be added, and an existing parallel parking area would be widened to accommodate five head-in parking spots. A double, ADA accessible CXT toilet and informational kiosk would also be installed (see Figure 4b).

Changes since scoping: The excavation of holes in the western portion of the meadow basin to enhance Oregon spotted frog habitat were dropped from Alternative 2, the proposed action.

Figure 4a (left) showing proposed boardwalk and fill re-routes of the river trail and Figure_4b (right) showing the ADA accessible interpretive loop trail and improved parking and restroom facilities

Specific actions:

• Construct approximately 0.2 acres (8,442 feet2) of new riverbank using a toe-wood design infrastructure covered with mineral soil and sedge mats (see Figure 5). Multiple tree boles would be utilized for this construction, with additional trees utilized for fish habitat structures described below. Trees would be sourced from an as yet unspecified location. Whole and partial trees with branches and root wads would most likely be placed using an excavator working from the existing berm or riverbank, but could be placed by a walking hoe ‘spyder’ machine working from within the channel. Structures would be keyed into the bank and would be below high water line in most cases. • Connect up to three historic inlet/outlet channels between the river and the slough to allow river water to access a natural floodplain without the means of a constructed control structure. Channel bottoms would be excavated to an elevation of 4040.75 feet, equal to a river discharge of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) on the Benham Falls gage. This elevation is approximately 1.95 feet below high river flows (~2,100 cfs) and 1.45 feet below average summer flows (1,800 cfs). Each channel would have a maximum designed flow volume capacity of 2 cfs at an unimpeded river discharge of 2,100 cfs. The channels would be located where historic connections are apparent on the ground (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Ryan Ranch riverbank restoration and re-vegetation plan for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

• Lower approximately 0.3 miles of existing riverbank (0.7 acres; 29,118 feet2) and berm structure (0.4 acres; 19,300 feet2) to a referenced profile elevation along the interface of the meadow/slough (Figure 5). The surface of the established profiles would be de-compacted and planted with sedge and willow species to stabilize the exposed mineral soil resulting from this activity. Sedge mat ‘plugs’ measuring up to 9 square feet would be grown out at local nurseries or removed from within the Ryan Ranch slough basin and other riparian areas along the Deschutes River and placed on top of the newly established and exposed riverbank elevations. Willows would be planted along the reach approximately 5 to 10 feet away from the riverbank edge, replicating reference conditions across the river. • Re-route the Deschutes River Trail using a combination of existing dike (100 feet), newly constructed boardwalk (600 feet) and fill-enhanced high ground (800 feet) in the meadow. The new boardwalk and fill locations would route the trail within 50 feet of the existing trail location (see Figure 4a and 4b). • Construct an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible interpretive boardwalk/trail loop in the northeastern lobe of the basin. The loop would utilize portions of the Deschutes River Trail

in addition to new construction of approximately 600 feet of boardwalk and 1,155 feet of barrier free, crushed rock ADA trail to connect the loop with the proposed parking areas (Figure 4b). • Improve parking facilities by adding gravel to existing pullouts, creating 2 ADA accessible parking spaces and installing an ADA accessible, double CXT toilet. The existing parking facility located at the intersection of the Dillon Falls boat ramp and trailhead roads would be expanded with fill and gravel material to accommodate 5 head in parking spaces (Figure 4b). • Create three fish habitat structures below the ordinary high water mark of the river to improve the complexity and variety of habitat for redband trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss gairdneri). Each structure would be comprised of 8 to 10 whole trees that are interconnected with the toe-wood bank foundation structures and the tree boles would be keyed into the bank for security. Structures would be angled into the current to slow water velocity and deflect flow away from the riverbank. No structures would span the channel or impede river navigation. • Create a hardened river fetch access ramp to the river to accommodate existing dog and human use modified by the proposed restoration activities (Figure 5). Approximately 15 ft of riverbank would have a honeycomb geogrid base material filled with gravel and cobble size substrate supported by toewood and large boulders placed below water line. The substrate size of the surface material and the angle of repose of the restored riverbank would be engineered to minimally affect the free flow of the river. • Line and fill the excavated hole in the northeastern portion of the meadow with bentonite clay and local diatomaceous soil material.

• Create earthen plugs within the existing artificial ditch running from the inner basin of the slough basin to the northeastern portion of the meadow at approximate intervals to slow the lateral flow of water.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed in response to the concern for the movement of stored water out of the river channel above irrigation outlets near Bend (Key Issue # 1). This alternative would modify the Proposed Action by lowering the elevation of the inlet/outlet channels by 1 foot to an elevation of 4,039.75 feet. The lower elevation of the channels would allow the river to begin accessing the slough basin at a discharge level of 700 cfs, which could occur up to a month prior to the release of irrigation water stored in Wickiup Reservoir each spring. However, analysis showed little difference on the total amount of stored versus natural water that would be affected and the lower channel elevations would retain less water in the basin after the river receded. (See the Hydrology and Geology Effects Sections in Chapter 3 for analysis of these conditions). This alternative was not supported by comments received from the DBBC Irrigation Districts.

Alternative 4 – Adaptive Management with Pilot Project Alternative 4 was developed following the 30 day comment period for the 2010 EA in response to the potential for water loss within the Ryan Ranch basin and associated harm to downstream users (Key Issue # 2). This alternative includes a Pilot Phase to monitor and assess the dynamics of surface water added to the basin on a temporary basis and an Adaptive Management Strategy to determine one of three restoration build out options based on the results of the Pilot monitoring. The three build out options are described in a decisional flow chart schematic (Figure A). The agreed upon amount of water for the Pilot phase would be allowed to enter the basin under a Limited License Agreement between a member(s) of the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) and the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD).

Figure A. Schematic decisional flow chart for the pilot and adaptive management phases of Alternative 4.

Alternative 4 would slightly modify the streambank restoration activities described for Alternative 2 by moving the entire existing berm to a location on the basin side of the existing borrow ditch (Figures D, F and H) and excluding the fish habitat log structures. A number of small excavations to enhance critical habitat for Oregon spotted frog are included in this alternative. Alternative 4 also includes the recreation, education, and infrastructure components analyzed for Alternative 2.

Pilot Phase: Up to three surface water connections between the river and the slough basin would be constructed to allow surface water from the river to temporarily inundate the basin in a timely period (Figure B). The connections would be installed during low river flows in anticipation of allowing the water to access the basin during a rising river hydrograph in the spring. The connections would be subsurface culverts installed through the existing berm, but could also be open channels lined with “C” shaped prefab cement or wood, or free standing in the diatomaceous silts. The culverts would include: • Headgate or internal valve shutoff and screens. • River side access elevation below 1,100 cfs • Basin side outflow at 1,100 cfs; apron of rock material to reduce outflow impact • Two 12” to 24” diameter culverts to inner basin (0.8 to 3 cfs capacity each @ 2,100 cfs discharge) • One 12” to 24” diameter culvert to northeast lobe (0.8 to 3 cfs capacity @ 2,100 cfs discharge) Additional actions taken during the Pilot Phase would include:

• Lining the sump area hole in the northeastern lobe of the basin with bentonite and filling with local material to the surface. • Installing berm plugs within the artificial ditch that runs between the inner basin and the sump area.

Figure B. Diagram of the Pilot Phase actions for Alternative 4.

Adaptive Management: Water levels of monitoring wells in the basin would be observed and recorded during the Pilot Phase to determine seepage rates and the effects of the additional surface water on the dynamics of the existing groundwater system. The results would be discussed with the DBBC and OWRD in order to reach a consensus on the dynamics of the Ryan Ranch groundwater system and the amount of losses that would be acceptable for a long term connection between the river and the basin to be maintained. This alternative would adaptively manage the outcome of the Pilot phase to determine the implementation of one of three restoration build out options for the project (Figure A). Three option scenarios have been identified based on losses that are either (A) acceptable; (B) can be isolated; or (C) are unacceptable:

Option A – Acceptable evaporative and seepage losses are determined during the Pilot Phase and a long term commitment of water to the Ryan Ranch floodplain is agreed upon between the USFS, OWRD and DBBC. This would result in a full restoration build out scenario displayed in Figures C and D.

Figure C. Adaptive Management Option A. Option A would include the re-location of the existing berm in its entirety to the basin side of the existing borrow ditch. The Deschutes River Trail would be located on the berm with permanent bridge crossings of the 2 to 3 inlet channels (Figure D). Log habitat structures described in the Proposed Action would be dropped for all Options under Alternative 4.

Actions under Option A additional to the streambank restoration described under Alternative 2 include:

• Removal of the temporary culverts installed for the Pilot Phase and a conversion to open inlet/outlet channels with a gently graded cross section. • Habitat improvements within the slough floodplain on the basin side of the berm to provide overwintering habitat1 for the Oregon spotted frog. This would include: 2 o Multiple excavations approximately 100 ft in size using explosives or machine buckets to access low winter groundwater along the basin side of the berm and the interior third of the basin. o These excavations would be located within the artificial ditch running between the inner basin and the sump area, along the basin side of the berm and in existing internal inner basin wallow areas. Locations could favor remaining patches of reed canarygrass.

1 The duration and depths of inundation measured during the Pilot Phase would be used to help interpret the vegetative communities likely to persist under the restored hydrology, primarily as they relate to providing habitat for the various stages of the Oregon spotted frog life cycle. These include the primary stages of breeding, egg mass development, tadpole metamorphosis and adult overwintering, all of which require some level of water depth and persistence. The deepest level of inundation is required for overwintering, with depths in excess of 3 feet necessary to prevent open water areas from freezing solid.

• Excavation of off-channel open water areas on the floodplain between the river and the berm to expose hyporheic groundwater at low river flows of 500 cfs. Excavations would be approximately 3 to 4 feet deep with a bottom elevation of ~4036 feet. This design component would be additional to the re-construction of the floodplain described for Alternative 2 that restores saturated floodplain and hummock elevations to provide areas of emergent vegetation (sedges) and woody vegetation (willows) that mimics reference conditions across the river.

Figure D. Detail of Adaptive Management Option A. Option B – Localized seepage losses are determined during the Pilot Phase that can be isolated and a long term commitment of water to the Ryan Ranch floodplain is agreed upon between the USFS, OWRD and DBBC. Based on data collected from monitoring wells, stratigraphy cores and ground penetrating radar the most likely area of loss would be in northeastern lobe of the basin. This option would result in a partial restoration build out scenario displayed in Figures E and F.

Actions under Option B additional to the riverbank restoration described under Alternative 2 include:

• Construction of a surface berm to isolate the area of unacceptable loss, most likely between the inner basin and the northeastern lobe. • Removal of the structure(s) and blockage of the channel(s) leading to areas of unacceptable loss. The river would not be allowed to access these areas directly through surface connections. • Removal of the structures lining the inlet/outlet channels that access areas of acceptable loss and a conversion to a vegetated and graded cross section.

Figure E. Adaptive management Option B.

• Option B would include the re-location of the existing berm in its entirety to the basin side of the existing borrow ditch. The Deschutes River Trail would be located on the berm with permanent bridge crossings of the 2 inlet channels accessing the inner basin. The newly created berm separating the inner basin from the northeastern lobe would be used as trail to complete the interpretive loop option described under Alternative 2 (Figure F). • Excavation of off-channel open water areas on the floodplain between the river and the berm to expose hyporheic groundwater at low river flows of 500 cfs. Excavations would be approximately 3 to 4 feet deep with a bottom elevation of ~4036 feet. This design component would be additional to the re-construction of the floodplain described for Alternative 2 that restores saturated floodplain and hummock elevations to provide areas of emergent vegetation (sedges) and woody vegetation (willows) that mimics reference conditions across the river. • Habitat improvements within the slough floodplain on the basin side of the berm to provide overwintering habitat2 for the Oregon spotted frog. This would include:

2 The duration and depths of inundation measured during the Pilot Phase would be used to help interpret the vegetative communities likely to persist under the restored hydrology, primarily as they relate to providing habitat for the various stages of the Oregon spotted frog life cycle. These include the primary stages of breeding, egg mass development, tadpole metamorphosis and adult overwintering, all of which require some level of water depth and persistence. The deepest level of inundation is required for overwintering, with depths in excess of 3 feet necessary to prevent open water areas from freezing solid.

2 o Multiple excavations approximately 100 ft in size using explosives or machine buckets to access low winter groundwater along the basin side of the berm and the interior third of the basin.

o These excavations would be located within the artificial ditch running between the inner basin and the sump area, along the basin side of the berm and in existing internal inner basin wallow areas. Locations could favor remaining patches of reed canarygrass.

Figure F. Detail Adaptive Management Option B. Option C – Unacceptable seepage losses are determined during the Pilot Phase that cannot be isolated. This would result in a partial restoration build out scenario displayed in Figures G and H.

Figure G. Adaptive management Option C.

Actions under Option C additional to the riverbank restoration described under Alternative 2 include:

• Removal of the structure(s) and blockage of the channel(s) created during the Pilot Phase that access areas of unacceptable loss. The river would not be allowed to access any portion of the slough floodplain directly through surface connections. • Option C would include the re-location of the existing berm in its entirety to the basin side of the existing borrow ditch. The Deschutes River Trail would be located on the relocated berm and there would be no inlet/outlet channel connections (Figure H). • Excavation of off-channel open water areas on the floodplain between the river and the berm to expose hyporheic groundwater at low river flows of 500 cfs. Excavations would be approximately 3 to 4 feet deep with a bottom elevation of ~4036 feet. This design component would be additional to the re-construction of the floodplain described for Alternative 2 that restores saturated floodplain and hummock elevations to provide areas of emergent vegetation (sedges) and woody vegetation (willows) that mimics reference conditions across the river.

Figure H. Detail Adaptive Management Option C.

Following implementation of the pilot phase: • Native sedges will have access to water throughout the growing season and will better compete with the invasive reed canarygrass. • Saturation of the soil profile through the growing season will likely incur localized lodgepole conifer mortality. • The growth and spread of native sedge and willow transplants will occur over a period of several years, as long as Ryan Ranch is inundated and the inlet/outlet channels remain in place. If Options B or C are implemented and the meadow is again de-watered, it would take approximately two years for the meadow to return to its previous vegetative condition.

Project Design Features ______Project Design Features (PDFs) are used as a basis for determining and disclosing effects in the Environmental Consequences discussions. PDFs are generally considered routine, have been used on similar projects, and/or have proven to be effective to minimize impacts to specific resources. They can be incorporated into contract provisions or accomplished by appropriate resource specialists. The following list includes the PDFs incorporated into the design of activities proposed under the action alternatives of the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration and Education proposal.

Public Safety 1. Operating restrictions will be used to protect visitors and motorists during construction. Measures may include, but are not limited to, trail, road or site closures, operating period limitations, and

temporary trail re-routes. Closure of the trail would coincide with construction periods associated with the boardwalk (fall 2014) and the riverbank restoration (October 15th to November 31st, 2014).

Cultural Resources 2. District Archaeologist will be present during project implementation work that involves any subsurface excavation.

Scenic Quality 3. Maintain the buffer of existing trees between the slough basin and the proposed CXT and ADA accessible parking area to screen the new development from the trails and river corridor. 4. Plant willows along the river corridor to screen sections of the boardwalk and trail from being visible by boaters on the river.

5. Maintain a low railing and horizontal lines to the boardwalk design to minimize visual impacts within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

Recreation

6. Designate the interpretive loop trail sections not on the Deschutes River Trail as hiker and wheelchair accessible only.

Soils/Hydrology 7. Include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of the project design. Apply appropriate erosion control and hazardous spill protection measures to all ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction and development of new facilities, as described in the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest Lands (USDA Forest Service, 2012). See water quality section for specifics.

8. Provide sufficient surface drainage from new management facilities to reduce long term maintenance.

9. Line the sump area in the northeastern portion of the meadow with bentonite clay and fill with local silt material.

Fisheries 10. To reduce impacts to turbidity and sedimentation within the Deschutes River, instream and riverbank work to occur outside of high flow summer season (work to occur during approximately October 15- April 15). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) instream work period within the proposed project area is July 1 - October 15th. Instream work would be outside of this time period, requiring a waiver from ODFW. ODFW, a partner in this project, does consider instream work outside of the stated period under some circumstances and if measures are taken to protect fish.

11. To reduce impacts to turbidity and sedimentation, heavy equipment to work from on top of bank while placing log toewood structures, lowering the berm, and building bankfull floodplain bench.

Wildlife 12. Maintain the Deschutes River Trail location as close to the existing corridor as possible 13. Survey project area prior to implementation for eagle, red-tailed hawk, osprey and great gray owl nesting activity.

14. Do not implement project during Tumalo Winter Range closure Dec. 1st – March 31st except for the installation of inlet/outlet culvert or channel connections. The necessary construction window for this component of the project is under low river discharge conditions between October 1st and April 1st. 15. Develop a Salvage Plan for Oregon spotted frog individuals and egg masses if Option B or C of Alternative 4 is implemented and areas inundated during the Pilot phase are shut off. 16. No disturbing activities (heavy machinery) within ¼ mile and/or line of sight from any active nest of the following species during the listed periods. *Indicates species present in or adjacent to project area. Northern goshawk March 1 – August 31 (WL-3) Cooper’s hawk April 15 – August 31 (WL-19) Sharp-shinned hawk April 15 – August 31 (WL-19) *Red-tailed hawk March 1 – August 31 (WL-3) Golden Eagle January 1 – August 31 (WL-3) *Osprey April 1- August 31 (WL-3) *Great gray owl March 1 – June 30 (WL-33)

Invasive Plants (Terrestrial)

17. Clean all equipment before entering and after leaving National Forest System lands. Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into the project area and before proceeding to the next project.

18. No gravel, sand, or rock material will be brought into the project area until it is inspected and approved by a Forest Service botanist. If weeds are found, the source will be treated and/or an alternative source identified.

19. Prior to project initiation, hand pull spotted knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, and bull thistle in the parking area, and any other weeds found that are listed as noxious by the State of Oregon and Deschutes National Forest.

20. The site will be monitored for weeds upon project completion and treated as necessary under the Deschutes/Ochoco ROD / FEIS for invasive plant management. Treatment can include methods such as herbicide application, hand pulling or covering with black plastic depending on the size, type, species or location of the invasive plant population.

21. Prior to transplanting the sedge mats, carefully inspect the area for signs of reed canary grass and move to another site if weeds are found.

Monitoring ______

Hydrology Staff gages installed in the inner basin area will be monitored by USFS during the Pilot phase to determine the amount of water diverted through the temporary culverts under a Limited License agreement between the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) and Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Groundwater wells already installed in the Ryan Ranch slough basin will be monitored to determine the dynamics and fate of the surface water added during the Pilot Phase. The results of this monitoring will be used to determine one of three restoration build out options for implementation under Alternative 4. The staff gage and groundwater wells would continue to be monitored into the future following the implementation of the project in order to identify any changes in the system that could impact downstream users.

Wildlife Monitoring of Oregon spotted frog habitat, occupation and utilization, and egg masses produced will occur during the Pilot phase and on an annual basis following implementation of the restoration and build out of the project. This monitoring will be used to inform the effectiveness of the restoration to provide critical habitat and support the Oregon spotted frog.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental consequences section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. Analysis of the effects is tiered to the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Final Environmental Impact Statement and Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Federal Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Acts established an overriding goal to protect and enhance the ORVs identified in the UDWSR Plan for which the river was designated (Deschutes NF, 1996). The Interdisciplinary Team includes Forest specialists for each discipline. Specialists on the IDT prepared technical reports to address the environmental consequences of the project. All reports are maintained in the project file, located at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District office in Bend, Oregon. In some cases, this environmental assessment provides a summary of the report and may only reference technical data upon which conclusions were based. Specialist reports are incorporated by reference into this environmental assessment (40 CFR 1502.41). The following section includes discussion of cumulative effects. Where there is an overlapping zone of influence, or an additive effect, this information is disclosed. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. This approach is consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.4(f). Where specific ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects may contribute to cumulative effects with the proposed action or alternatives, the specific project is mentioned in the effects analysis.

Geology and Groundwater ______

Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The UDWSR Plan identifies the lava flows that have created the stair step of falls and rapids along the river corridor and the landforms created by the interaction of depositional and erosive action as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the Geologic resource. The UDWSR Plan specifically states that the river channel shape, size and rate of change are not an ORV because the channel dynamics are so affected by the human controlled management of flows below Wickiup Dam.

UDWSR Geology and Hydrology Standard: The Outstandingly Remarkable geologic features will be maintained free of obtrusive development and protected from accelerated erosive activity or other damage resulting from land-based development.

Applicable UDWSR Geologic guidelines:

G-1: Development of facilities and instream structural additions may be permitted where Outstandingly Remarkable Values will not be adversely affected.

No geologic features would be affected by the proposed construction of the boardwalk, toilet or parking facilities. The proposed restoration activities would create toewood log structures to support new riverbank and enhance fish habitat, both of which would be located instream and would not affect Geologic ORVs. Profile elevations on a cross section between the river and the slough basin would be lowered to reference conditions capable of supporting native sedge and willow vegetation transplanted to the site.

G-3: Hardening of banks is not permitted if such activities would adversely affect free flow or other river values. Streambank protection techniques will emphasize use of native vegetation. Bioengineering techniques (utilization of native vegetation, woody debris, and other techniques which mimic natural stream dynamics) will be favored.

Approximately 15 feet of the riverbank, or 1% of the 0.3 miles of riverbank contiguous with this location, would be hardened to create a stable access point to the river for humans and dogs. The engineered design for the ramp includes a gradual angle of repose, gravel substrate on the surface and toewood structures as a foundation to replace the large boulders currently present above high water line that are outside the size and character of the river substrate. The designed angle of repose, applicable use of substrate and small percentage of hardened riverbank will not affect the free flow character of the river.

Existing Condition

Geomorphic History: Ryan Ranch Meadow is a basin landform immediately adjacent to the Deschutes River. The basin is part of the lower Kiwa Creek drainage, whose confluence with the Deschutes River was historically 1.5 miles to the east of the current site. Underlying bedrock is comprised of the Kiwa unit, a Pleistocene era (1.8 Million years) basaltic lava sourced from Kiwa Butte, part of the Cascade Mountains located approximately five miles to the west. The stratigraphy above the Kiwa bedrock is a complex of mixed residuum and alluvium that is reflective of nearly two million years of geomorphic development on a bottomland landform associated with the lower Kiwa Creek drainage. This includes a

thick layer of clay found in two drill holes located in the inner basin and along the river. The complex of older stratigraphy is topped by a chronologically aged layer of Mazama ash (7,600 years) and a thick layer of diatomaceous silts reflective of a slough floodplain relationship with the Deschutes River.

The Deschutes River moved to the current location nearly 7,000 years ago when the Lava Butte basalt flow blocked the river upstream of Ryan Ranch near Benham Butte and forced it to create a new channel along the western margin of the flow. Kiwa Creek was also dammed by the Lava Butte flow during this period and likely formed a backwater environment in the existing basin area. The diverted Deschutes River reached Ryan Ranch after some period of time and further raised the elevation of water in the basin held behind the lava flow above what is now Dillon Falls. A temporary lake was created before the river breached through the lava at Dillon Falls and completed the geomorphic transition of Ryan Ranch from a creek drainage bottomland to a slough floodplain of the river.

Open water conditions created prior to the breach were likely conducive to the growth of diatoms and the settling of silts from the river. However, drill logs from geoprobe and auger holes show an accumulation of diatomaceous silts in the Ryan Ranch basin at depths of up to 16 feet, indicating a period of standing water on the order of thousands of years, likely far greater than the length of time it took for the river to breach through the lava at Dillon Falls. These depths support a long-term connection between the river and the slough floodplain, which is corroborated by historic references from the Fremont expedition and hydrologic references that indicate the river historically accessed and flooded the Ryan Ranch basin through small surface channels following the breach (BOR, 1954). These conditions would have created regular inundation during the year conducive to the growth and deposition of diatoms for a length of time (~6,000 years) commensurate with the accumulation of up to 16 feet of diatomaceous silt in the basin.

Stratigraphy: A vertical cross section of the stratigraphy in the basin was developed from drill logs of Geoprobe drilling conducted on October 28th, 2009; additional holes drilled with a mechanized auger in July, 2010; hand auger holes dug for groundwater monitoring wells during the spring and summer of 2010 and deeper mechanical core drilling to install permanent groundwater monitoring wells in October of 2011 (Figure 6). A Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey in September of 2012 has further refined the depth to bedrock of this stratigraphy across the basin (see Figure 9). The thick layer of gravelly alluvium and brecciated rock above the Kiwa basalt is not uniform in composition, mixed with fines and indicative of a weathered lava flow and the early development of a stream drainage. The thick layer of fine textured blue-grey redox clay above this was penetrated by three wells that appear to associate it with the weathered surface of a bottomland associated with Kiwa Creek. Although this layer is an effective repellant of water (aquitard), the spatial extent across the basin remains unclear. The layer of mixed silty-clayey alluvium above that is also not uniform but includes layers that are quite dense and resistant to the 2” geoprobe bore at up to 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of hydraulic force. This appears to reflect a continued transition to a wider bottomland area associated with Kiwa Creek and possibly a migrating channel. The Mazama ash layer has a uniform particle size and a depth that is commensurate with known iso-pachytes of this deposition. The upper layer of diatomaceous silts is relatively homogenous and ranges from 5 to 25 feet in thickness. The entire profile is capped by a 10” layer of silty mineral soil that is dark in color and comprises the surface layer of soil across the basin.

Figure 6. Stratigraphy of the Ryan Ranch inner basin and observed aquifers.

Faulting: Faults can influence ground water by acting as barriers or conduits to flow (Gannett, et. al., 2001). The degree to which faulting in the area has dissected the Kiwa basalt and affected lateral or vertical flow of the local groundwater is unknown. Geologic maps show northwest to southeast trending fault lines correlated to the Northwest Rift zone section of the Metolius fault zone in the project area (MacLeod et. al., 1995) (Personius, 2002). A normal fault, 1.35-km in length, is mapped in the unnamed drainage entering the northwest corner of the basin and can be interpreted to cross Ryan Ranch meadow from the 2010 LIDAR image (see Figure 7A). The fault down-drops to the southwest with a strike of N27°W and is buried under sediment in the basin for an estimated 0.55 km. These characteristics can be interpreted as a surficial expression of a magma dike intruded at depth into the existing Metolius fault zone. Groundwater: Groundwater reservoirs in the Deschutes River Basin generally transition from near surface to deeper subsurface aquifers between Benham Falls and Bend (Gannett, et. al., 2001). Near surface aquifers are generally associated with the accumulation of sediments capable of perching water and likely interact directly with the river via surface and subsurface flows. Deeper subsurface aquifers are generally associated with porous bedrock that allows water to percolate deep below the surface and accumulate within the volcanic layers of the Deschutes Formation, where it can flow laterally and re- charge back to the river downstream of Bend in the general area of Lower Bridge.

Groundwater in the Ryan Ranch basin is evident in a near surface water table that is seasonally re-charged by a combination of aerial precipitation and subsurface flows from upland watersheds. Monitoring data from 2010 to 2013 identifies a water table that annually rises above the surface of the inner basin before steadily receding over the course of the summer. Input to this aquifer appears to be primarily a result of

direct accumulation of rain and snow on the site, although subsurface flows from the Kiwa Creek and unnamed drainage area to the west and northwest, respectively, may also contribute. Input of surface water from the river is blocked by a constructed berm and the lateral extent of subsurface contribution from the river into the basin through the hyporheic zone appears limited. The surface water table is perched on, and partially within, a thick layer of diatomaceous silts (see Figure 6).

Groundwater under pressure is evident in wells reaching the Mazama ash layer beneath the diatomaceous silts (see Figure 6). Nested well data from the 2012/2013 monitoring period indicates that this water is likely part of the surface water table column and expresses pressure due to a high rate of transmissivity of the Mazama ash relative to the silts. The lower transmissivity of the overlying diatomaceous silts and the underlying mixed silty-clayey alluvium compared to the Mazama ash is conducive to the lateral movement of water in this layer, which is indicated by the pressure gradients derived from water levels measured on August 10th, 2010 that indicate the lateral movement of water in this layer toward the inner basin from the river (see Figure 13).

Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring of groundwater within the Ryan Ranch basin includes thirty wells hand augered in 2010 (Figure 7) and eleven wells that were installed and cased in November of 2011 (Figure 7A). All wells were located to help identify the presence, depth and duration of groundwater across the basin.

Groundwater comprising the phreatic surface of the water table is reflected by monitoring wells MW-5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 for a portion of the 2010 monitoring season (Figure 8) and monitoring wells MW - 50A1, 50A2 and 51A during the ongoing 2011/2012/2013 season (Figure 8A).

Groundwater comprising the potentiometric pressure of water in the Mazama ash is reflected by 2010 monitoring wells MW-4, 6, 7B, 8, 10, 17, 18 and 19 throughout their monitoring periods; 20120 wells MW-3, 5, 11A, 13A, 14A, 16A, 16B, 20, 21, 22 and 23 for a shorter period of time (Figure 10); and wells MW-50B, 50C, 51 and 52 during the ongoing 2011/2012/2013 period.

B-1 1 9 B-2 MW-6 8 2 MW-4 B-6 7B 10 14 7A MW-23 MW-15 MW-18 MW-3 13 11 12 B-5 MW-19 MW-17 MW-16B MW-5 B-3 MW-16(A) MW-22 B-4 MW-21 MW-20 MW-24

Figure 7. 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Geoprobe borings in the Ryan Ranch basin.

Figure 7A. 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Wells in the Ryan Ranch basin.

Observations and interpretation of the near surface water table

Water levels measured in the monitoring wells indicate the presence of a near surface water table that recedes below ground as the summer progresses. Observations include:

• The upper (phreatic) surface of the water table within the inner basin re-charged above ground level in the 2010 and 2012 monitoring years before receding steadily as the season progressed (Figures 8 and 8A). • Wells in the inner basin show a steady recession independent of the river level, which remained higher in elevation and relatively constant during the period (Figures 8 and 8A). • The recession of the water table in both years coincided with increasing transpiration rates and decreasing precipitation during the spring and summer months. Wells MW-5, 11, 12, and 16 generally ranged between 4037 and 4038 feet until mid-June of 2010 and receded at an average of 0.91 feet per week between June 8th and July 27th, 2010. Wells 50A1 and 50A2 ranged between 4038 and 4039 until early July of 2012 and receded at an average rate of 0.88 feet per week between July 12th and August 15th, 2012. • Water levels in the inner basin wells responded directly to the input of appreciable aerial precipitation in June of 2010 (Figure 8) and late November of 2012 (Figure 8A).

4043.00 River Elevation 4041.00 river elevation 4039.00 MW-5 4037.00 MW-11 4035.00 MW-12 4033.00 MW-13 4031.00 MW-14 4029.00 MW-15 4027.00 MW-16 4025.00 6-Jul 1-Jun 8-Jun 3-Aug 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 4-May 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 20-Apr 27-Apr 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 11-May 18-May 25-May

Figure 8. Near Surface Groundwater Monitoring in Ryan Ranch Basin (2010)

4045.00 MW 50A1 (Diatomaceous 4043.00 silts @ 6 ft)

4041.00 MW 50A2 (Diatomaceous silts @ 4.5 ft) 4039.00 MW 50B 4037.00 (confined @ Mazama) 4035.00 MW 50C (confined above 4033.00 clay layer)

4031.00 River stage

4029.00

Figure 8A. Near Surface Groundwater Well Monitoring in inner Ryan Ranch Basin (2011/2012)

Interpretation of the near surface aquifer:

Monitoring of wells during the 2010 period indicated that the near surface aquifer within the Ryan Ranch basin was a seasonal water table that perches on and partially within a thick layer of diatomaceous silts. It was unclear whether this water was separate from subsurface water encountered under pressure beneath the silts. It was also unclear whether the seasonal water table dried completely and/or led to deeper aquifers due to the limited depth of the hand augered wells in the inner basin. A set of nested wells (MW- 50 A-E) were installed in the inner basin during the fall of 2011 help understand these relationships (Figure 7A). The hydrographs of the four shallowest nested wells are displayed in Figure 8A and all six wells are displayed in Figure 11. Observations and conclusions from this data include:

• Water levels in the two wells located in the diatomaceous silts (MW-50A1 and A2) are directly in tune with each other throughout the monitoring period and reflect a phreatic surface of the same water column. • The levels of wells accessing the Mazama ash layer (MW-50B) and a depth just above a thick clay layer (MW-50C) reflect the potentiometric surface of water under pressure but respond directly with each other at different elevations. • The hydrographs of the two deeper wells parallel the shallow surface wells throughout the season but have lower different elevations. • All four wells are independent of changes to the river discharge. • All four wells responded quickly to heavy rains recorded in November of 2012 (Figure 8A). Hand augered near surface wells also responded quickly to heavy rains in June of 2010 and following a thaw in January/February of 2011.

Snowmelt and aerial precipitation appear to be the primary inputs re-charging the near surface water table under current conditions. Although subsurface flow from the Kiwa Creek drainage (~ 2,500 acres of surface area) and the unnamed drainage entering into the northwestern portion of the meadow both appear to reach the basin, it is not completely clear to what degree this water contributes to the phreatic surface of the near surface water table. Water levels measured in well MW-19 when it was installed on June 29th, 2010 compared to wells located within the basin indicate a gradient from the upland toward the basin. This gradient is interpreted as a possible source of the potentiometric pressure reflected by groundwater accessed in the Mazama ash below the diatomaceous silts.

The direct input of surface water from the river to the surface of the water table in the basin is currently prevented by the existing berm structure blocking the historic inlet/outlet channels on site. Subsurface interaction between the river and either the phreatic or potentiometric surface in the inner basin also appears to be limited. Phreatic or potentiometric surface water levels in wells away from the river steadily receded in both monitoring periods despite the elevation of the river remaining constant at a level 1.5 to 2 feet above that of the wells (Figures 8 and 8A). However, the phreatic surface of water levels in wells MW-12, 25, 51A and 52, all of which contain water throughout the calendar year, are directly related to the discharge levels of the river and likely reflect a hyporheic zone of influence extending at least as far as these wells (Figures 10 & 13).

Subsurface interaction between the river and wells in the northeastern lobe of the basin also appears to be limited in extent. Phreatic surface water was observed in wells MW-5, 11, 13, 14 and 16 but not in wells MW-4, 4A, 9, 10 and 26 during the 2010 monitoring period. This is likely a result of the limited amount of seasonal water contributed from the small upland watershed to the north and from the river, although surface water in wells MW-15 and MW-27 is in equilibrium with the discharge elevations of the river and relatively close in distance (Figure 8). A landform that extends south from the boat ramp area between

wells MW-13 and MW-15 (Figure 7) may also limit the lateral extent of the near surface water observed in wells MW-15 and 27. Although ground surface elevations slope toward the north in this area, a Ground Penetrating Radar survey conducted in 2012 shows that the underlying bedrock slopes steeply toward the river (Figure 9) and likely influences the lateral extent of near surface water contributed through the hyporheic zone.

The thick layer of diatomaceous silt that extends into the subsurface along the river is uniform in texture and has a relatively low hydraulic conductivity of 10-4 cm/sec that may limit the lateral extent of the hyporheic zone from the river. The underground topography defined by the bedrock may also influence the pooling of the groundwater within the areas defined by the blue and teal attributed depths to bedrock. Water in wells MW-5, 11, 13, 14 and 16 receded during the summer of 2010. Wells 13, 14 and 16 were extended into the Mazama ash layer where they encountered water under pressure reflected in wells 13A, 14A and 16A (Figure 12).

Figure 9. Depth in meters to basaltic rock within the Ryan Ranch basin as interpreted from 70 MHz antenna radar records using a variable velocity. Bold numbers are selected traverse lines and point numbers identify well sites.

The lateral extent of the water table observed within the inner Ryan Ranch basin appears to be limited as a result of the total annual precipitation on site (~15”) and the slope and depth of the underlying bedrock (Figure 9). Phreatic surface groundwater was not present in the northwestern portion of the meadow when well MW-6 was installed into the Mazama layer on April 28th, 2010 and wells in the margins of the northeastern portion of the basin (MW-1, 2, 4, 9, and 10) did not have surface water during 2010 and 2011. The absence of surface water in this portion of the basin, despite the presence of subsurface water under pressure in the same wells, likely reflects a limited input of water from immediate upland drainages and the river. Wells MW-5, 7A, 7B, 11, 13 and 14 appear to reflect the lateral extent of near surface water contributed through the hyporheic zone to this area, which correlates well with the sloping bedrock that may define the edges of the pooled water.

Sump Area

Observed extent of near surface groundwater pool in 2010

Inlet/Outlet Channels

Observed extent of sub surface groundwater pool in 2010 Cased Groundwater Wells

Figure 10. Observed extent of groundwater in Ryan Ranch Meadow basin (2010).

Interpretation of the seasonal recession of the water table (phreatic) surface

A seasonal recession of the water table within the inner basin of Ryan Ranch was observed during the monitoring periods of 2010 and 2012. Elevations of wells in 2010 were highest in early May and receded below the diatomaceous silts in most wells by July 27th (Figure 8). The degree to which this recession is attributed to seepage losses was not clear following the 2010 monitoring period. However, the steady recession did coincide with high summertime evapotranspiration levels of the vegetation in the meadow, seven weeks of little or no aerial precipitation following the early June 2010 rains, and a likely decrease of groundwater contribution from the Kiwa Creek and unnamed upland drainages.

Nested wells were installed in the inner basin in the fall of 2011 in order to clarify the movement and dynamics of groundwater in the profile and help determine whether seepage was occurring (Figure 11). Monitoring of these wells during the summer of 2012 season also showed a steady recession in the four wells located in the diatomaceous silts, the Mazama ash and just above a thick clay layer at a depth of 25 feet (Figure 8A). Water was observed in the two wells above the clay layer (MW 50B and 50C) throughout the year and, although the dynamics of their levels were in consort with MW 50A1 and A2, potentiometric pressures were evident and elevations were lower until mid-September, when the phreatic surface of water in MW 50A2 receded below the potentiometric level of MW 50C for a brief period. However, the hydrographs of all four wells parallel each other through the period, albeit at slightly different elevations, indicating a direct relationship and possibly a single column of water. The two wells located deeper in the profile (MW 50D and E) showed no accumulations of water through this period, indicating little if any downward seepage of water from the water table through the clay layer.

The volume of water represented by the recession measured in the Ryan Ranch water table during 2012 was estimated using the specific yield of the diatomaceous silts and compared to volumes consumed by evapotranspiration in other freshwater emergent marsh systems. The following calculations indicate that the quantity of water “lost” from the profile during the summer at Ryan Ranch is comparable to evapotranspirative consumption measured in research literature.

• The specific yield (drainable porosity) of the diatomaceous silt layer in which the water table is held is estimated to be a maximum of 20%, but may be as low as 10% (USGS, 1967).

• Wells reflecting the phreatic surface of the water table during the 2012 season receded an average of 6.5 feet between April 1st and October 1st. This change in elevation equates to approximately 1.3 feet of solid water when corrected for the 20% drainable porosity of the diatomaceous silts. Surface water measured in wells receded an average of 8 feet during the total 2010 summer monitoring period, equating to approximately 1.6 feet of actual water.

• The top foot of water “lost” in wells MW 50A and B was above the ground surface and would be accounted for in its entirety. This addition would result in a consumption amount of approximately 2.3 feet of water for the evapotranspirative period.

The water losses estimated at Ryan Ranch for 2010 and 2012 were compared to measured evapotranspiration losses in other freshwater emergent marshes and for open water systems. Accepted annual losses from evaporation for small open waters in the local area are 3.66 feet (Oregon Water Resources Department, personal communication) and 2.41 feet from evapotranspiration in emergent wetland marsh in the Klamath Basin (USGS, 2006-5036; Burt and Freeman, 2003). The estimated volume of the surface water that receded from the Ryan Ranch profile correlates somewhat with the evapotranspiration rates of the Klamath basin sites when the water ponded above the ground surface in the slough basin prior to June 8th is added to the total.

It remains possible that some of the recession of the water table may reflect the downward percolation of water through the diatomaceous silt layer. Isolated seams of water were observed at depth within the silt layer when wells MW-13, 14 and 16 were extended in 2010. Although a vertical separation of the groundwater was evident in these holes as drier layers of silt were encountered with depth before moisture levels increased immediately above the Mazama ash layer, these seams could reflect the lateral movement of remnant water from the seasonal near surface aquifer; lateral input from the river; or upward movement of water under pressure that was encountered when the hole was punched into the Mazama ash layer.

Figure 11. Well depths and water level trends of inner basin wells MW 50A1, A2, B, C, D and E.

Subsurface Groundwater: All wells penetrating through the diatomaceous silts appear to access water in the Mazama ash layer that is artesian in nature. This is likely due to the higher transmissivity of the sand textured ash compared to the diatomaceous silts above and the mixed alluvium and clays below. Interpretation of the 2010 monitoring data appeared to show that this was a confined aquifer separate from the seasonal water table above it. However, the hydrographs of the four nested wells monitored in the inner basin during 2012 (MW 50A1, A2, B and C) are all directly related to each other and may reflect one column of water (Figure 11).

Water levels in all wells accessing the subsurface groundwater beneath the diatomaceous silts also receded throughout the spring and summer of 2010 (Figure 12), although at a slower rate compared to those observed in the near surface aquifer. Wells MW-4, 6, 10 and 17 receded at an average rate of 0.33 feet per week from June 8th to July 27th. Wells MW-11, 13, 14 and 16 were converted to wells MW-11A, 13A, 14A and 16A, respectively, and reflect the confined aquifer after they were augered into the Mazama layer when the water table disappeared or receded below the depth of the original well. Well MW 50B was monitored during the 2012 season and receded at a rate of 0.23 feet per week between June 1st and July 26th.

4043.00 river elevation

MW-3 4041.00 River Elevation MW-4

MW-6 4039.00 MW-7B

4037.00 MW-8 MW-10 4035.00 MW-15 MW-17

4033.00 MW-18

MW-19

4031.00 MW-5A

MW-13A 4029.00 MW-14A

MW-16A 4027.00 MW-16B

4025.00 MW-20 MW-21 6-Jul 1-Jun 8-Jun 3-Aug 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 4-May 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 20-Apr 27-Apr

10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug MW-22 11-May 18-May 25-May

MW-23

MW-24

Figure 12. Trends in 2010 Subsurface Groundwater Well Monitoring in Ryan Ranch Basin

Interpretation of the subsurface groundwater:

The 2010 monitoring shows a wider extent of groundwater accessed beneath the diatomaceous silts across the Ryan Ranch basin compared to the surface water table (see Figure 10). The potentiometric pressures of groundwater in these wells were used to compile isobars of equal pressure across the basin from data recorded on August 2nd, 2010 (Figure 13). Wells MW-16B, 20, 21, 22 and 23 were added to expand the grid of potentiometric pressures across the basin and refine these isobars. The elevated discharge level of the river during the irrigation season provides a phreatic surface elevation above the potentiometric or phreatic levels of all wells in the basin (Figures 12 and 14) and likely results in the flow of subsurface water toward the inner basin. The elevation of water levels in monitored wells shows a gradient flow of water toward the inner basin from the river and the contributing upland watersheds.

All of the data gathered from groundwater monitoring wells between 2010 and 2013 is included in Appendix D of this EA.

32.6 29.7 33.0 31.3

33.8 32.0 37.4

32.5 36.5 31.2 34.5 31.4

28.6

32.8 35.6

Monitoring Wells Isobars of Potentiometric Pressure

Groundwater elevation recorded 8/10/10 (28.6)

Figure 13. Isobars of potentiometric pressure for subsurface groundwater in Ryan Ranch extrapolated from data recorded on August 10th, 2010

The potentiometric data implies a subsurface connection between the river and subsurface groundwater, although this relationship is not completely clear or completely direct. Wells closer to the river are more closely related to the dynamics of the river through the hyporheic zone, especially MW 51 which is a relatively deep well located just above a clay layer and has a hydrograph that parallels the river and expresses a high amount of potentiometric pressure (Figure 14). Well MW 52 was installed into the Mazama ash layer approximately 23.5 feet below the surface and expresses water levels within four feet of the surface elevation throughout the year. The Mazama ash layer is uniformly coarse and has a high transmissivity rate conducive to the lateral movement of water. Although MW 52 is at a similar depth to MW 51, it does not have quite as high a potentiometric pressure and is not as responsive or as directly related to changes in the river elevations (Figure 14). Finally, well MW 51A, which is located 3.5 feet into the diatomaceous silts, appears to be a phreatic surface that is well below the river and marginally responsive to changes in the river elevations over the course of the year.

Water levels in well MW-51 from early October to late November of 2012 appear to show a period when the phreatic surface of the river fell below the potentiometric pressure level of the confined aquifer and water could be returning to the river (Figure 13). However, it is not clear whether this water can penetrate vertically upward through the diatomaceous silts to an elevation reflective of this pressure, especially since the phreatic surface of the water table measured in MW-51A remained below the potentiometric pressure level expressed in MW-51 during this period. Well MW-52 also accesses the subsurface aquifer and expresses potentiometric pressures above the phreatic surface elevations of water visible in the borrow ditch and represented by wells MW-12 and 25. This near surface water is not as directly related to the river discharge levels and recedes during the summer even as the river discharge remains high (Figure 8). Water levels in all wells expressing subsurface water receded during the summer months despite a steady or increasing river discharge level during this period (Figure 12).

4044

4043 MW 51 (confined above clay 4042 layer)

MW 51A 4041 (Diatomace ous silts)

4040 MW 52 (confined 4039 Mazama)

4038 River stage

Figure 14. Trends in groundwater levels measured in monitoring wells close to the Deschutes River (2012/2013).

Interpretations of groundwater dynamics in the northeastern portion of the basin

Groundwater in the northeastern portion of the basin appears to be somewhat isolated from the inner basin. Surface water was not observed in this area other than close to the river or within the artificial ditch as far north as well MW-7B (Figure 10). Water was observed flowing in the artificial ditch during a thaw in January/February 2012 when surface snow and ice in the basin thawed, pooled and was transported into the sump area. Surface water was not observed in wells MW-9, 10, 4, 4A, 26 or 27.

Cased wells MW 53A and B were installed at two different depths within the sump in 2011 to monitor the presence and dynamics of groundwater. The shallower of the two wells (53A) is in the mixed alluvium/residuum at a depth of 19.6 feet and accumulated a small amount of water during the late winter and early spring of 2012, apparently as a result of the thaw and direct conveyance to the sump area through the artificial ditch. The deeper of the two (53B) extends into bedrock at a depth of 44.6 feet and accumulated appreciable amounts of water during the same period in 2012, as well as in 2013 when direct above ground conveyance was not observed to the same extent. Water levels in this well do not express artesian characteristics and have slowly receded each season. However, wells MW 8, 9 and 10 located closest to the sump did access water under pressure during the 2010 monitoring period and may express the lateral extent of the subsurface groundwater contributed through the hyporheic zone of the river.

The GPR survey confirmed shallower depth to bedrock in the wells surrounding the sump area which may limit the amount of subsurface water moving into the sump under current groundwater volumes and pressures (Figure 9). Wells MW-4A and 26 were added late in the 2010 monitoring period and potentiometric pressures indicate movement of subsurface water accessed in these wells to the northeast

toward the river. Monitoring wells MW-1, 2 and 9 reflected no subsurface groundwater during the 2010 monitoring period, while wells MW-4, 7B, 8 and 10 are the closest to the sump area that were observed to have subsurface water during the 2010 monitoring period (see Figure 7). Water was historically pooled above the surface of the sump, as evidenced by aerial photographs taken during the summers of 1943, 1953, and 1974 (see Figure 15), following above average winter precipitation in Bend and above average snow packs in the Cascade Mountains (Figure 16).

Interpretation of the near surface aquifer outside the slough basin:

The near surface aquifer outside the slough basin is represented by monitoring wells MW-15 and MW-27 from the 2010 monitoring period. Although the elevation of groundwater in these wells was slightly below that of the river, they are directly related to the flow regime of the Deschutes River during the monitoring period (Figure 8). Lateral flow of near surface water from the river appears to occur through the mixed alluvium of fine sands that comprises at least the top 6 feet of soil in this area and has a higher hydraulic conductivity than the diatomaceous sediments within the basin. It remains unclear whether subsurface groundwater in this aquifer is interacting with the basin under the natural landform that extends south from the boat ramp area.

Investigations of potential water loss from the Ryan Ranch basin:

Investigations of the physical composition and stratigraphy of the bedrock and sediments within the Ryan Ranch basin indicates a system that minimizes the vertical movement of water. Drill logs show that the basin contains multiple layers of sediment that function as aquitards (Figure 6) and a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey has confirmed that the entire basin is underlain by the Kiwa basalt bedrock unit that generally slopes toward the river (Figure 9). A thick layer of diatomaceous silts is present across the entire basin with a relatively low hydraulic conductivity capable of slowing the downward movement of seasonally accumulated groundwater. Although not impervious, the silt layer visibly and measurably slows the downward movement of water. The stratigraphy also includes multiple layers of highly weathered alluvium and a layer of clay that appear to perch subsurface groundwater throughout the year.

Previous investigations and interpretation of gage data along the Deschutes River do not clearly define water losses attributable to the Ryan Ranch basin. The reach of the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and the city of Bend has been identified as losing approximately 7% of river flow, or about 83 cfs, to deeper groundwater reservoirs that re-charge the Deschutes River below Bend (USGS, 2005). However, historic gage data cannot be interpreted to attribute losses directly to the Ryan Ranch basin. No data exists from the Bend gage to measure losses below Benham Falls from unregulated flows that could access the Ryan Ranch basin prior to the construction of the Crane Prairie Dam in 1922. The original berm structure that currently prevents the river from accessing the Ryan Ranch basin was constructed sometime between 1915 and 1931.

Investigation and interpretation of gage data that does exist appears to show that losses from the Deschutes River along this reach are related to the type of bedrock or sediments accessed by the river at various discharge levels. Interpreted gage data shows average losses of 73 cfs over one river mile between the gages above and below Lava Island Falls where the river flows directly over the Lava Butte basalt. Losses are considerably less per river mile (83 cfs over the 7.5 river miles) between the Benham Falls gage and the top of Lava Island (period of record from 1945-1965) where the river primarily flows over the older and more fine grained Kiwa basalt flow, accesses slough basins filled with fine sediments, and is levied from the Lava Butte flow along portions of the east bank near Benham Falls (Gannett et. al. 2001). Data from discontinued gages at Ryan Ranch and above Lava Island (period of record 1943 to 1952) showed an average loss of 21 cfs for a reach that also flows over the Kiwa flow and along the edge of the Lava Butte flow.

BOR Civil Engineer and Hydrologist Harold W. Sexton identified the highest areas of loss between Benham and Lava Island Falls as those associated with the younger and porous Lava Butte flow located on the east side of the river (BOR, 1954). The Ryan Ranch basin is located on the west side of the river and the drill logs from the 2010 and 2011 well drilling show that groundwater in the basin does not directly access the Lava Butte basalt, as previously implied by some of the older geologic investigations of the area. Although the BOR improved the berm structure at Ryan Ranch in 1947 to prevent releases from the recently constructed Wickiup Dam from flooding the basin, it is unclear from Sexton’s investigation whether this was to prevent measurable losses of water, or facilitated the continued use of the basin as a large pasture that was maintained as a USFS grazing allotment until 1989.

The only assessment of water loss identified by Sexton within the Ryan Ranch basin was a “natural sump” in the northeastern portion of the area that allowed excess water directed from the inner basin by an artificial ditch to “drain off” at an estimated capacity flow of 1/5 cfs (BOR, 1954). The 1873 Fremont expedition may have identified this area as an “entonnoir” or funnel in which a small stream connected from the river disappeared when they camped there in December of that year. However, the Sexton investigation includes no evidence of the ultimate fate of water reaching the sump area or any other portion of the basin. The U.S. Forest Service apparently used dynamite sometime before 1954 to increase flow to the subsurface in this area, an effort that was deemed by Sexton to have failed due to the placement of dynamite at “insufficient depths” and the re-settlement of the deep meadow silts following the explosion that re-sealed the sump (BOR, 1954). This event apparently increased the size of the hole from Sexton’s estimate of 18” diameter before the attempt to the tapered depression approximately 6-8 foot in depth and 15-20 foot in diameter that is currently present.

Investigation of the physical nature and depth of the stratigraphy beneath the sump hole was conducted in 2010 and 2011 via a geoprobe bore hole (B-1), an augered drill hole to install monitoring well MW-1, and a closed bit drill hole to install wells MW 53A and 53B. Drill logs and the GPR survey show a greater depth to bedrock compared to the immediately surrounding area, which may be a result of an anomaly in the paleolithic surface of the 1.8 million year old Kiwa bedrock. Regardless, the stratigraphy of sediments above the bedrock, although disturbed and partially removed from the USFS explosives, includes a similar content of mixed alluvium and residuum to that observed across the basin. However, there is no indication of the presence of underlying clay layers found in the inner basin and close to the river in drill logs for wells MW-50 and MW-51. The hole drilled with a closed auger bit to install MW-1 dissected nearly three feet of the highly weathered alluvium/residuum that resisted deep penetration by the 2” geoprobe bore B-1 at hydraulic pressures exceeding 5,000 psi. The hole drilled for wells MW-53A and B used a closed auger bit through these same sediments for nearly 20 feet before reaching bedrock.

The disturbance of the profile and creation of a larger hole from the USFS explosives appears to have removed an appreciable amount of the diatomaceous silts and disrupted the continuity of the remaining sediments compared to the profiles outside this immediate area. These conditions would allow water reaching the sump area to percolate into the profile at a rate estimated by Sexton of 1/5 cfs. Water appears to perch approximately 20 feet below the surface without immediately ponding above ground level, a condition that was observed to occur during the mid-winter thaw in January/February 2011 and the subsequent spring months. Water has been observed to accumulate in the deepest well (MW 53B) during the 2012 and 2013 monitoring periods and has held water throughout the calendar year despite showing a steady recession during the late winter and early spring months.

Although no groundwater was observed beneath the sump area in geoprobe hole B-1 in October 2009 or in MW-1 during the 2010 monitoring period, the presence of water at depth in MW-1 in mid-winter and spring of 2011 indicates that water that does infiltrate beneath the surface in this area is perched to some degree by the weathered residuum laying directly above the Kiwa basalt. Aerial photographs dated 1943, 1953 and 1974 show water ponded in the depression and partially backed up the artificial and sinuous channels that lead to it (Figure 15), apparently supporting Sexton’s interpretation that the dynamite attempt had minimal effect on the rate of flow down this sump. Surface water can access this area via the artificial ditch but the geoprobe and well borings indicate that sloping bedrock may limit the amount of subsurface groundwater that reaches this area under current conditions. Extremely dry conditions observed in the lower foot of the residuum augered in mid-summer for MW-1 when the confined aquifer was present throughout the surrounding basin do not indicate a conduit to deeper reservoirs for water confined in the subsurface aquifer across the basin.

As previously discussed, potentiometric pressures measured in monitoring wells indicate that subsurface water accessd within the Mazama ash layer appears to move laterally toward the inner basin (Figure 11). Well data supports the interaction of water between the river and the basin through the hyporheic zone, which likely occurs through the layer of Mazama ash and mixed alluvium in which the subsurface water is observed to be confined. The degree to which this relationship is direct is not completely clear since the potentiometric pressures of the subsurface groundwater in monitoring wells decreased across the basin during the 2010 monitoring period despite the river remaining at an elevated level throughout the period (Figure 10). It is possible that a decreasing input of water to the basin from the contributing upland watersheds as the summer progresses may reduce the eastward pressures of this source in the basin and allows subsurface water from the river to reach the inner basin with less resistance. Regardless, the 2012 monitoring data shows that subsurface groundwater in the inner basin is held throughout the year and does not act as a conduit to deeper aquifers. As a result, the amount of groundwater loss to deeper aquifers within the Ryan Ranch basin appears to be limited by the existing stratigraphy and the observed recession of the water table appears to be largely due to evapotranspiration by the plant communities on site.

Figure 15. Aerial photograph from July 5th, 1953 showing dark areas of ponded water in the northeastern portion of the meadow (right arrow) and a borrow area in the northwestern portion of the meadow (left arrow).

Potentiometric pressures from wells in the northeastern portion of the basin indicate that the groundwater in this area may be isolated from the inner basin. Water that is present is more likely to be connected with the river. The GPR survey indicates that the bedrock in this area slopes toward the river and likely influences the possibility of lateral subsurface flows in this direction. A 60 foot drop in elevation of the river through Dillon Falls in the first ½ mile below Ryan Ranch increases the possibility of return flow of subsurface water from this area to the river. However, the dynamics of subsurface groundwater in this area are not completely clear and will need to be observed and monitored during the pilot phase of this project in order to fully determine the fate of water in this area.

Effects - Groundwater

Alternative 1 No Action

Groundwater:

The seasonal rise and recession of the near surface water table within the basin would remain similar to those observed during the 2010 monitoring period as a result of no action. Contributions to the water table would continue to be primarily from aerial precipitation and subsurface flow from the Kiwa Creek watershed. The extent and duration of the water table within the Ryan Ranch basin would continue to vary from year to year as seasonal precipitation fluctuated.

Contributions of surface water from the river to the near surface water table in the Ryan Ranch basin would remain immeasurable in the near term under the No Action alternative. The existing berm structure would continue to prevent the direct flow of surface water from the river into the slough basin, while near surface contributions through the hyporheic zone would also continue to be minimized by the diatomaceous silts that comprise the riverbank and much of the profile. Deeper subsurface interaction of water between the river and the basin expressed in wells MW 51 and 52 would continue.

The No Action alternative presents a moderate risk of surface water from the river contributing to near surface groundwater in the basin within five to ten years. The river is currently eroding through the berm structure and would likely breach through within this time period if no measures are taken to fortify the existing nick points. As a result, the amount of river water moving into the basin and the evaporative losses described for the action alternatives from within the basin are possible under this alternative in the mid to long term.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Water loss under this analysis is considered the movement of water out of the river that would not replenish the channel before the Irrigation District outlet canals near the city of Bend. Possible loss pathways identified in this analysis include:

• Evaporative loss from open pooled water (see Hydrology Section) • Movement of water into the slough basin and down to deep subsurface aquifers that return water to the river below the city of Bend; or • Water held in the slough basin that does not return to the river via the inlet/outlet channels until after the irrigation season.

Groundwater:

Analysis of the stratigraphy and groundwater of the slough basin supports a case for surface water entering the Ryan Ranch basin from the river to re-charge the near surface water table and begin filling the basin. A thick layer of diatomaceous silts with a low hydraulic conductivity (infiltration rates of the water into the diatomaceous silts were measured to be approximately 10-4 cm/sec using an infiltrometer ring) slows the vertical movement of water down through the profile and perches the water table above the ground surface in the inner basin well into early summer. Monitoring of nested wells in the inner basin during 2012 showed that a pool of subsurface groundwater remained in the profile throughout the season despite the recession of the phreatic surface of the water table below ground (Figure 11).

The Proposed Action would allow surface water from the river to enter the slough basin at river discharge levels above 1,100 cfs on the Benham Falls gage. The river water would begin to contribute directly to the near surface water table sometime in April when the water table is at or near its highest level during the year. Inflow rates would begin at approximately 1 cfs per channel and rise to a maximum of 2 cfs per channel until approximately 120 acre feet of water was added to the basin and the water table came into equilibrium with the river (Figure 19). The rate of inflow into the basin would decrease once the basin was filled to an elevation of ~4040.8 feet but would continue as the river discharge continued to ramp up to the average summer discharge of approximately 2,100 cfs, or an elevation of 4042.8 feet. A total of 190 acre-feet of surface water from the river would be necessary to fill the above ground volume of the basin at this level of river discharge if no subsurface re-charge was necessary. It is likely that an amount up to 300 acre feet could be necessary to fully re-charge and fill the basin.

Once inundated, the water level in the basin would be in equilibrium with the river level and held at approximately the 4042.8 foot elevation (~2,100 cfs river discharge) through the irrigation season. This would inundate approximately 70 acres of the basin at depths ranging from nearly four feet to less than one inch. The effects of this pool of water on groundwater in the basin would most likely be a result of the increased downward pressure of this thicker column of water throughout the summer. Although analysis of the stratigraphy and existing groundwater within the slough basin indicates the potential for seepage to deeper groundwater aquifers is low, downward seepage in the near surface profile could increase approximately 15% for every two feet of additional head (see response to comment 1_19). This could allow water to seep another 1.2 feet deeper in the profile if the eight foot recession of the water table during the 2010 monitoring period was assumed to be entirely a result of seepage.

Analysis of groundwater data within the slough basin indicates a low potential for surface water loss via seepage into deeper groundwater pathways. Although the phreatic surface of the water table receded nearly eight feet during the 2010 monitoring period, it appears that seepage rates under current conditions are relatively slow and do not appear to exceed the evapotranspirative (ET) needs of the wet meadow plant community (see discussion on Interpretation of the seasonal recession of the phreatic water surface - p. 38). Factoring the specific yield of a homogenous layer of diatomaceous silts results in a loss of approximately 2.3 feet of actual water from the profile as a result of the eight foot recession, which is near or above the estimated evapotranspirative (ET) use of the wetland plant community on site. This indicates that the majority of this recession could be a result of evapotranspirative losses and not seepage.

Further support for minimal seepage throughout the inner basin can be found in the 2012 monitoring data. Deeper wells located below the clay layer perching the year round subsurface groundwater did not express increases in water levels during the 2012 summer period of water table recession, indicating that this layer acts as an aquiclude. The 2012 monitoring also shows that the hydrographs of the four shallowest wells are in consort with each other, indicating that the subsurface groundwater and the receding water table may be a single water column. As a result, increased seepage rates resulting from the greater head of a deeper pool of water ponded at the surface would be expected to contribute to the year

round subsurface groundwater and not connect with the deeper subsurface aquifers well below the clay aquiclude found in the inner basin.

The sump area in the northeastern portion of the meadow basin has been identified as a possible connection to deeper subsurface aquifers that could result in the loss of groundwater. The profile in this sump has been disturbed and partially removed, reducing the impediment to downward movement of water in this area. However, conditions observed during the 2010 monitoring period indicate that the sump area is not a conduit for subsurface water reflected in nearby wells to deeper subsurface aquifers. A lack of moisture observed deep in the profile in 2010 indicates that subsurface water present in wells closest to the sump area (MW-7A, 7B, 8 and 10) was not flowing down through this area. The levels of subsurface water in these wells receded at a rate similar to other wells across the basin during 2010 and do not appear to indicate localized increases in rates of flow to deeper subsurface aquifers.

Historical and recent evidence exists that show the sump area is capable of ponding water for a period of time. Aerial photos dated 1943, 1953 (Figure 15) and 1974 show water standing in the sump area and partially backed up the artificial and sinuous channels during July or August of these respective years. The three photos were taken following winters with above average precipitation in Bend (Oregon Climate Service data) and correlated to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) as above average snow packs in the Pacific Northwest (Figure 16), indicating that inputs of water from aerial precipitation and subsurface flow from contributing watersheds were likely higher than amounts observed in 2010.

Figure 16. Historic Snowpack and associated Pacific Decadal Oscillation records for the Pacific Northwest. Graphs show above average winter snowpacks for the water years prior to the 1943, 1953 and 1974 aerial photographs with standing water in the northeastern portion of the meadow.

Surface water was observed in the sump during the January/February 2011 thaw when water levels rose high enough in the inner basin to flow into the sump area through a surface connection provided by the artificial ditch. Water was temporarily ponded at the surface of the hole but receded into the profile over time, likely a result of previous attempts to excavate and blast the area to improve drainage (BOR, 1954). These conditions appear to combine with the greater depth to bedrock to allow surface water to infiltrate beneath the surface at a faster rate and greater depth than the surrounding area. Water was present and

held in well MW-1 from February through March of 2011 at a depth that indicates it was perched on the mixed alluvium and residuum in the profile.

Wells MW 53A and B were installed in the sump in 2011 and had a seasonal increase in water levels during the spring of 2012 and 2013 that receded at a rate that was independent of other wells as the summer progressed. Both of these wells are in place to reflect water level dynamics following the addition of surface water from the river. Project Design Criteria (PDC) included in the project would be implemented to minimize the downward movement of water in this area including mixing a layer of bentonite into the profile and filling the existing hole with local diatomaceous silts (see PDC #10, p.18). Levels of water in these wells would be monitored to assess the response of groundwater in this area. Surface water entering the sump area from the river would be expected to perch on the added bentonite and silts and begin filling the sump area until it rose to the surface and began backing up the artificial ditch and natural channel that lead from it. Potential losses from this area would be gaged by the water levels in the two wells located in the sump.

In summary, the implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to re-charge groundwater in the Ryan Ranch basin and increase the volume of water held in the water table between April and October each year. Large losses to deeper aquifers via groundwater pathways throughout the entire irrigation season are unlikely, although unimpeded pathways would be suspected if no groundwater re-charge occurred within the Ryan Ranch basin. A maximum of 6 cfs of surface water from the river channel at a discharge of 2,100 cfs could move through 3 inlet/outlet channels at a rate of 2 cfs per channel throughout the irrigation season if the above ground volume of the basin did not fill and come into equilibrium with the river (see Hydrology effects section for analysis of the above ground pool). This water would be considered lost to the irrigation delivery system if the entire flow moved to deep subsurface aquifers that do not re-charge the Deschutes River until the Lower Bridge area below the city of Bend. The volume of water lost over the course of a three and a half month irrigation season could be approximately 2,300 acre-feet if no groundwater re-charge occurred within the basin. However, Project Design Criteria (PDC) included in the project are likely to slow the infiltration rate of water down through the profile in the most likely area of loss to a rate at or below the pre-excavation/dynamite estimate of 1/5 cfs under all action alternatives.

Alternative 3

Groundwater:

Effects to the near surface and subsurface aquifers of groundwater would be expected to be similar under Alternative 3 as those described under Alternative 2. Although Alternative 3 would allow surface water from the river to enter the basin earlier in the season, the total amount of water contributed to the near surface aquifer and the subsequent interactions within the basin are expected to be the same as under Alternative 2. As described under Alternative 2, the analysis of the stratigraphy and groundwater of the slough basin support a case for re-charge of the near surface aquifer (water table) and minimal contributions to the confined subsurface aquifer within the basin or deeper aquifers below the bedrock.

Alternative 3 would allow more surface water to enter the inner basin if no groundwater re-charge were to occur as a result of implementing the project under this alternative. The potential flow of water to deeper subsurface aquifers would occur at a higher rate than under Alternative 2. A maximum of 9 cfs (3 cfs per channel volume at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs) could flow unimpeded into the basin due to the lower elevation and larger volume of the inlet/outlet channels compared to Alternative 2. The volume of water lost over the course of a three and a half month irrigation season could be approximately 3,450 acre-feet if groundwater re-charge did not occur within the basin. However, the stratigraphy and

groundwater dynamics observed in the Ryan Ranch basin and discussed previously in this document make this scenario very unlikely.

Alternative 4

Groundwater:

The effects to groundwater under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2 for Option A. Option B would contribute surface water from the river to the groundwater within the basin but would inundate at least 7 fewer acres. However, the surface and groundwater dynamics would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. Option C would not contribute any surface water from the river to the groundwater in the basin and would maintain separation between the surface waters of the river and groundwater in the basin.

Hydrology and Water Quality ______

Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The Hydrologic resource was identified as a “significant” element of several Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) associated with Segment 4 of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor (UDWSR Plan). Most ORVs for other resources in and along the river are protected and enhanced by an abundant, stable flow of clear, clean water.

Applicable guidelines for the Hydrologic resource include a water quality guideline listed under the Geologic resource:

G-4: Water quality…would be protected by the use of project-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) and by improvement of riparian conditions through modification of river access points.

1) The Ryan Ranch project proposes to improve riparian conditions along the Deschutes River by establishing bank elevations and angles capable of supporting native sedges and willows. The restoration of the river banks would provide undercut habitat and shade along the west bank to reduce solar heating of water in the river and increase aquatic habitat for invertebrate species capable of improving water quality. As a result, water quality of the Deschutes River would be protected by the improvement of riparian conditions along 0.3 miles of riverbank.

2) The proposed hardened fetch ramp for humans and dogs would focus traffic away from areas of the riverbank proposed for restoration with native species. The ramp would be designed to resist erosion and reduce sediment contribution to the river. Total river frontage of the ramp would be less than 1% of the length of restored riverbank along Ryan Ranch meadow and would utilize substrate similar to that of the river channel on top of the engineered block material.

3) BMPs are listed in the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management, 2012. BMP’s that are applicable to protecting water quality include:

W-4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan. This is a pre-determined organization and action plan to be implemented in the event of a hazardous substance spill. Objective is to prevent contamination of waters from accidental spills.

Existing Condition

Water Quality: The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) lists the upper Deschutes River as a 303(d) water quality impaired water body within the project area (ODEQ, 2010). Water quality parameters for which standards are not being met include dissolved oxygen (all year), turbidity (spring and summer), sedimentation (undefined season), chlorophyll a (summer), and stream temperature (all year). A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is projected to be completed for the Deschutes Basin by ODEQ to address the issues associated with these parameters of a water quality limited waterbody.

Surface Water: The Deschutes River seasonally inundates a series of slough basins between Sunriver and Lava Island Falls via inlet/outlets described as “distributary channels” by BOR civil engineer Harold Sexton (BOR, 1954). These channels appear to be enhanced by beaver or river otter using them as slides and are maintained by the seasonal flow of water between the river and the slough basins. Water was observed to begin accessing sloughs through the distributary channels early in 2010 and 2011 at a river discharge ranging between 1,100 and 1,300 cfs at the Benham Falls gage, which is at or below the natural average monthly discharge levels of the Deschutes River at the same gage prior to regulation by the Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams (Figure 17 below).

Figure 17.

Evidence of up to three distributary channels historically entering Ryan Ranch Meadow can be seen on the ground (Figures 9 and 18), including the sinuous channel described as “natural” by Sexton that leads to a sump area in the northeastern portion of the basin (Figure 7A). The 1873 Fremont expedition appears to have observed this channel flowing water in December of that year. All three of these channels have been effectively prevented from conducting surface water between the river and the Ryan Ranch basin by the existing berm structure in place.

The elevations of the three channels at Ryan Ranch appear to be similar to the distributary channels accessing other sloughs along the Upper Deschutes, including one immediately across the river from Ryan Ranch. The elevation of the “natural” sinuous channel where it leaves the river was extrapolated from survey measurements to an elevation of 4041.15 feet, or the equivalent of a river discharge of approximately 1270 cfs. This elevation was likely historically even lower due to the vegetative growth and organic soil buildup in the channel over the last 90 years. Regardless, the channel is at an elevation that would have been historically reached by natural pre-dam river flows most months of the each year.

Historic Inlet /Outlet Channels observed in Ryan Ranch Meadow

Figure 18. Location of historic inlet/outlet channels in Ryan Ranch Meadow (left) and close up of upstream channel that leaves the river and is blocked by the existing berm structure (right).

Effects

Alternative 1 No Action

Surface Water:

No surface water from the river would enter the Ryan Ranch slough basin in the short term under the No Action alternative. The berm structure in place would continue to block the inlet/outlet channels and prevent the interaction of surface water with the slough basin. However, the erosion of the riverbank and berm structure would continue and the likelihood of the river breaching through the berm structure at one or more of the existing nick points is likely to occur within the next five to ten years if no measures were

taken to prevent it. As a result, surface water would enter the slough basin and have similar effects as those described under Alternatives 2 and 3 below.

Water Quality:

The Deschutes River is listed as a 303(d) stream along the reach on which the project is located. Dissolved oxygen (all year), turbidity (spring and summer), sedimentation (undefined season), chlorophyll a (summer), and stream temperature (all year) standards are currently not being met along the Upper Deschutes River. The No Action alternative would maintain existing channel, bank and riparian conditions along 0.3 miles of the river. Width to depth ratios of the river channel are likely to continue to increase as the existing low growing and shallow rooted herbaceous forbs and grasses fail to prevent the bank from sloughing into the river. The project area would continue to contribute sediment to the river and the riparian vegetation would continue to provide no measurable amount of shade. As a result, the No Action Alternative would not improve and likely have a negative effect on the standards associated with water quality that are not being met along this reach of the river.

Alternative 2

Surface Water:

The timing and amount of surface water affected by the proposed action are primarily related to the seasonal variations in discharge levels of the Deschutes River, the above ground volume of the Ryan Ranch basin, and the dynamics of the water table within the Ryan Ranch basin. The implementation of the proposed action would allow surface water from the Deschutes River to directly access the Ryan Ranch slough basin through up to three inlet/outlet channels restored to a reference elevation of 4040.75 feet on site, or a river discharge of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) (see Table 2). This would allow surface water to contribute directly to the existing seasonal water table without the means of a man-made diversion structure (see Groundwater Effects section).

Table 2. River discharge and associated water elevation at Ryan Ranch River discharge 700 1,100 1,500 1,800 2,100 (cfs) Water elevation 4039.753 4040.75 4041.75 4042.3 4042.8 (ft)

3Numbers derived from field survey and Oregon Water Resources Department Rating Curve for the Deschutes River at Ryan Ranch, gage #3138

Unimpeded flow of water into the basin would initially occur in early to mid-April through the inlet/outlet channels. These channels are referenced to other inlet/outlet channels along this reach of the river and designed to be approximately 2 feet in height and 1 foot in width (Figure 13). Water would flow unimpeded through the channels at an average rate of up to 1 cfs per channel (3 cfs total) as the river discharge ramped up to 1,500 cfs, which is one foot higher than the elevation of the channel bottoms. A total flow rate of 3 cfs would continue until approximately 120 acre-feet of surface water filled Ryan Ranch basin to an elevation of 4040.75 feet or 65% of the basin capacity at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs (Figure 15). This flow rate is calculated to be 0.27% and 0.17% of the 1,100 cfs and 1,500 cfs river discharge levels, respectively.

Monitoring during 2010 and 2011 indicates that initial re-charge of the water table in the basin would occur when it is at or near the highest levels each year, even in below average water years (see Figures 8 and 10). An unimpeded flow rate of 3 cfs would fill the basin in approximately 11.5 days, although the total time is estimated to be longer than this since a rate of flow below 3 cfs would occur for much of the

time period and a portion of the near-surface groundwater in the basin may need to be partially re-charged to the surface in some seasons. The river would be expected to come into equilibrium with the water table in the basin when it rose above an elevation of 4040.75 feet, which has been estimated to take between 16 and 24 days.

Flow rates of surface water from the river toward the basin would slow dramatically after the basin pool equilibrated with the river. Inflow rates of less than 1 cfs per channel would be expected as the river ramped up to the average summer flows of between 1,800 cfs (elevation 4042.3 feet) and 2,100 cfs (elevation 4042.8 feet) over subsequent weeks. The percentage of the river volume flowing into the slough basin would decrease to less than 0.1% under these conditions. The duration of river discharge at this level is generally from early to mid-May through late September, when the river level begins to drop. A total of 195 acre-feet of surface water would flow from the river to fill the above ground volume of the basin at an elevation of 4042.8 feet (river discharge of 2,100 cfs) each year (Figure 19). However, approximately 75 acre-feet of surface water would flow back into the river in October as the river discharge ramped was ramped down below 1,100 cfs. As a result, there would be a net flow of 120 acre- feet of surface water into the basin each year.

Ryan Ranch Slough Basin Cross Sectional Volume embankment River channel Slough Basin Levee

Slough Basin Volume Inlet/Outlet Channel River discharge Elevation 195 ac/ft 120 ac/ft 60 ac/ft

Elevation (feet) (100%) (65%) (30%) (Alternative 2) (Alternative 3) (2100 cfs) (1100 cfs)

4042.8 4040.8 4039.8

(700 cfs) (Note: Slough Basin and River channel width and depth not to scale)

Figure 19. Cross sectional volume of Ryan Ranch slough basin in relation to river discharge.

Surface water entering the basin would contribute directly to the water table and inundate approximately 70 acres at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs. The total amount of surface water flowing into the slough basin during the summer irrigation season months would depend on the rate of subsurface and evaporative losses from this area of inundation. The loss of water to deep subsurface locations is expected to be minimal based on the stratigraphy of the basin and the dynamics of the water table and subsurface groundwater monitored during 2010, 2011 and 2012. Project Design Criteria included for all action alternatives would line the sump area in the northeastern portion of the meadow with bentonite clay and fill it with local material to slow infiltration rates to the subsurface in this area. Expected infiltration rates within the sump area would be at or below the 1/5 cfs rate estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR, 1954).

Seepage rates of the surface water added to the water table are expected to minimally increase as a result of the deeper pool and contribute to the year round subsurface groundwater pool identified during the 2012 monitoring (see discussion of the basin stratigraphy and potential water loss in the Groundwater effects section). As a result, evaporation and transpiration of surface water is expected to be the primary loss from the basin during the period of inundation. The wetland at Ryan Ranch would likely be a combination of open water and emergent marsh vegetation similar to other sloughs along the Upper Deschutes that have portions of their basins deep enough to maintain open water. Digital elevation data indicates that approximately 20 out of the 70 acres within the Ryan Ranch basin are deep enough to maintain open water when inundated. The estimation of water loss from the inundated area via evaporative and transpirative mechanisms distinguishes between rates associated with open water and emergent wetland vegetation on site.

Potential losses during the April 15th through October 15th inundation period have been re-calculated from the 2010 EA released for public comment using accepted evaporation loss rates for small open waters (3.66 feet) and evapotranspiration rates for wetland marsh emergent vegetation (2.41 feet) referenced to similar environments in the Klamath Basin (USGS, 2006-5036; Burt and Freeman, 2003). These rates would produce a total loss of 75 acre-feet from the 20 acres of open water and 120 acre-feet from the 50 acres of emergent marsh vegetation for a total of approximately 195 acre-feet lost through ET mechanisms from the Ryan Ranch basin during the irrigation season.

Although analysis of the stratigraphy and sediments in the basin make it unlikely, a scenario if no groundwater re-charge occurs within the basin and all surface water flowing into the basin were lost to subsurface aquifers was analyzed. This would result in a maximum of 2 cfs per channel (6 cfs total) flowing unimpeded into the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs or <0.1% of the total river volume at this discharge. This could allow a total of 3,450 acre-feet of surface water to move from the river during the course of the 3.5 month irrigation season or <0.1% of the total acre-feet delivered to downstream users during the irrigation season. The effects of losing less than 6 cfs from the surface waters of the river channel under average summer irrigation flows between 1,800 and 2,100 cfs would alter the 7% loss assessed to Irrigation District supplies of stored water in the reservoirs as a result of natural losses between Benham Falls and Bend by less than 0.1%.

Stored versus Natural Water:

Water released from Wickiup Dam during the summer irrigation season consists of water with natural flow and stored flow water rights. Although this water is co-mingled it is assumed for this analysis that the volume of water in excess of historic natural flows is considered stored water. Natural stream flows have been calculated for the Deschutes River prior to the construction of the Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams. Average annual median monthly flow based on 30 year mean daily flows from 1958 to 1987 is 1,443 cfs/day at the Benham Falls gage (OWRD, LaMarche) and 1,523 cfs/day for the month of April.

Based on this data, all water entering the Ryan Ranch slough at or below a river discharge of 1,500 cfs in April is considered natural stream flow.

The slough basin would fill with 140 acre/feet of natural stream flows at a river discharge of 1,500 cfs, which equates to 72% of the slough basin volume at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs (Figure 15). The remaining 55 acre/feet of water necessary to fill the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs would be considered stored water. The 55 acre-feet of stored water held within the natural floodplain of the Ryan Ranch basin during the period of inundation would contribute to the 195 acre-feet of total calculated evaporative losses each year. However, this loss from the river delivery system would be offset by the 75 acre-feet that returned to the river under gravity flow through the channels when the river discharge dropped in the fall.

Water Quality:

Sedimentation and Turbidity: Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects in the long term (greater than 6 months) on the water quality standards for turbidity and sedimentation that are not currently being met along the Upper Deschutes River. The project would stabilize approximately 0.3 miles of riverbank that are currently contributing to sediment and turbidity levels in the river. The re-design of bank elevations and the transplanting of native sedges and willows along the river bank would establish rhizomatous and woody root systems capable of resisting the bank sloughing that is occurring under current flow regimes.

Restoration activities proposed within the river channel and on the riverbanks have potential to increase sedimentation and turbidity while work is being done, which could lead to temporary degradation of water quality in the short term (<1 year). Measures taken to protect water quality and fish include the construction of bank and toewood structures during low flow conditions and operation of equipment from the river bank to reduce direct impacts to the river channel. However, the excavation of channels, recession of toewood and habitat structure logs into the bank, and placement of soil and transplanted sedges on top of these structures are likely to contribute sediment to the stream channel during the operating period. These inputs are expected to occur while equipment is operating and would likely decrease within 6 months following the completion of bank restoration and the transplanting of sedges.

There would be a minimal risk of sediment contribution during the subsequent winter due as cold temperatures freeze the bank material and the dam controlled river remains below the restored banks. The risk would slightly increase the following spring when the river accesses the newly created bank elevations. This is likely to occur under a slow rise in the river discharge, which would reduce hydraulic energies on the banks, and the rapid response of the rhizomotous root systems of the sedges is expected to minimize the exposure of bare mineral soil along the banks within the first growing season.

The risk of sediment contributions and associated turbidity to the river in the longer term (>1 year) is expected to be lower as the habitat structures, restored riverbanks, and transplanted vegetation provide bank stability and allow the river to dissipate energy by accessing a vegetated floodplain. The reduction in turbidity and sedimentation would be gradual and would likely be immeasurable. Implementation of Aquatic Ecosystem Best Management Practices (AquEco 1-4) and mitigation measures during restoration activities would result in short term increases (<6 months) of sediment input or turbidity in the river. With a stabilized riverbank and access to floodplain, turbidity and sediment input from the restored area are likely to be reduced, although changes would be likely immeasurable in the river.

Stream Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen: The Upper Deschutes River is on the 303(d) list for temperature and dissolved oxygen year around, although the main period of concern is during the summer months when the warmest ambient air temperatures of the year can increase stream temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. The project would have offsetting effects on stream temperature

as a result of riverbank restoration activities and the creation of a seasonal pool of standing water from the river in the slough basin. The restoration activities along the riverbank are likely to have beneficial effects to stream temperatures by reducing the width/depth ratio of the river channel, creating stabile undercut banks, and increasing shade as a result of establishing bankfull floodplain elevations and transplanting sedge and willow vegetation along the west bank of the river. Although likely immeasurable, the beneficial effects to stream temperatures would help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river closer to preferred levels.

The seasonal pool of standing water in the meadow is estimated to be comprised of approximately 30% open water with depths over three feet and 70% with vegetation providing some amount of shade. The open water is expected to absorb the most solar radiation and warm slightly during the summer months, while solar radiation along the margins of the meadow would be somewhat reduced due to the growth of sedges, willows and other freshwater emergent vegetation. The predicted rise in temperature of water in the meadow is not known at this time. However, there would be little exchange of surface water between the basin and the river during the summer as the river remains at an elevated discharge level. As a result, the change in temperature of the water in the basin would be expected to have minimal effects on the temperature of the stream during this period.

The temperature of water in the basin pool is expected to cool slightly later in the season as the sun angle and associated solar radiation decreases between mid-September and mid-October. Surface water returning to the channel from the basin as river discharge levels decrease through October is likely to have cooled from the summertime highs and is not likely to have a measurable effect on the temperature of the river. It is still unknown to what degree the basin would release colder sub-surface water throughout the year. As result, changes to temperatures of water in the river channel are likely to be minimal following implementation of this project.

Chlorophyll a: The section of river adjacent to Ryan Ranch is on the 303(d) list for chlorophyll a during the summer months. Chlorophyll a levels in the basin pool are likely to increase as water temperatures warm slightly through the summer, with a subsequent decrease late in the season as solar radiation decreases and air temperatures cool. Water re-entering the river as discharge levels decrease is likely to have lower levels of chlorophyll a than summertime highs. In addition, total chlorophyll a levels in the river channel will have decreased by mid-October for the same reasons and concentrations from water leaving the Ryan Ranch pool would be diluted quickly. As a result, this project is likely to have no measurable effect on chlorophyll a levels in the river channel. Stream Flow Existing losses of water from the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Bend include flow losses to subsurface aquifers from the river channel and floodplains as well as evaporative losses from the surface of the river channel and other inundated sloughs. These losses are currently calculated to be 7% of the river discharge and may include water interacting with the Ryan Ranch basin through the hyporheic zone (see Groundwater Effects Section). The addition of surface water to the Ryan Ranch basin through open channels would not alter the physical nature of the subsurface stratigraphy that comprises the hyporheic zone and is unlikely to affect existing subsurface flows. However, the additional head and volume of the water table within Ryan Ranch may create a potentiometric pressure that trends toward the river channel during periods of inundation. As a result, additional losses from the river via subsurface groundwater pathways in Ryan Ranch are expected to be minimal and the long term indirect effects to the stream flow of the Deschutes River from subsurface losses are also expected to be minimal.

Losses of surface water anticipated from the Ryan Ranch project that could be additional to existing stream flow losses between Benham Falls and Bend would primarily be a result of evapotranspiration of surface water pooled within the Ryan Ranch basin during the three and a half month irrigation season.

This is estimated to be approximately 55 acre-feet of stored water and 140 acre-feet of natural flow water each year, or <0.1% of the mean daily flows within the river. It is unlikely that that this amount would cumulatively affect the mean daily flow of the river enough to be detectable on existing river gages or reduce the ability of the Watermaster to deliver stored and natural flow waters to downstream users.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2 Water Quality:

There are no measurable adverse direct effects to water quality in the long term from the implementation of this project. However, minimal changes to sediment input and turbidity of the river are expected to occur during implementation of the restoration activities but are expected to stabilize and be reduced from the existing condition in the short term. As a result, there are no anticipated effects to water quality from this project that could cumulatively affect the water quality of the Deschutes River in the long term.

Stream Flow:

There is the possibility of cumulative losses to stream flow as a result of this project if no groundwater re-charge occurs within the Ryan Ranch basin and all surface water flowing through the inlet/outlet channels connected to deeper subsurface aquifers. This would result in approximately 6 cfs leaving the river throughout the course of the irrigation season, which could result in a total loss of 3,450 acre-feet of surface water from the river during the course of the 3.5 month irrigation season if all the water disappeared from the basin. This could cumulatively add to the 83 cfs currently lost between Benham Falls and Lava Island Falls by up to 7%. However, geo-probe drilling and groundwater monitoring have not detected obvious losses of surface water in the basin to deep groundwater aquifers and anticipated losses to stream flow cumulative to existing losses are expected to be less than 1 cfs.

Stream gages located below Ryan Ranch on the Deschutes River will be monitored following the completion of the project to identify potential changes to stream flows in the river during the irrigation season. Although measurable changes in flow are not expected, potential actions to mitigate measurable reductions in stream flow will be evaluated and implemented. These include blocking the surface inlet/outlet channels and/or isolating the visible area of loss in the meadow with internal dikes.

Effects

Alternative 3

Surface Water:

Alternative 3 would have similar effects to surface water as those described under Alternative 2. However, potential losses of surface water from the river if no groundwater re-charge occurred are higher under Alternative 3 due to the deeper excavation of the inlet/outlet channels. These channels would be excavated to an elevation of 4039.75 feet, or approximately 1 foot below those in Alternative 2. Each channel would be approximately 3 feet high and 1 foot wide and allow for unimpeded flow rates at a river discharge level of 2,100 cfs of 3 cfs per channel or 9 cfs total due to the deeper channel dimensions. This would equate to a potential loss of 0.43% of the river volume at a discharge of 2,100 cfs.

Water movement between the river and the basin would also occur without the means of a man-made diversion structure under this alternative. The primary difference in effects from Alternative 2 would be the timing of water movement into and out of the slough basin and the amount of disturbance necessary to excavate the inlet/outlet channels another foot deeper (see Alternative 3 Soils Effects section). Surface water from the river would begin to flow into the inlet/outlet channels at a river discharge level of 700 cfs, which equates to an elevation of 4039.75 feet (see Table_2). Inflow to the basin would initially be unimpeded and flow at an average rate of <1cfs per channel (<3 cfs total) until the slough basin filled to the elevation of the inlet/outlet channels. The above ground volume of the basin below the 4039.75 feet elevation is estimated to be a total of 20 acre feet of water or approximately 10% of the above ground volume of the basin filled at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs.

The total time necessary to fill this portion of the basin would depend on the amount of water needed to recharge the near-surface groundwater which is at or near a seasonally high level during the spring. It is estimated that the basin would fill to the 700 cfs discharge level prior to April 1st, with the possibility of a total of 82 acre/feet entering the basin by mid-April as the river discharge increased to 1,100 cfs. This is 42% of the total volume of the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs. The river discharge would be between 1,100 cfs and 1,500 cfs when the slough basin filled to the elevation of the river, levels that are generally reached in early to mid April. Inflow would continue to slow at a similar rate as described under Alternative 2 after water in the basin came into equilibrium with the river and levels continued to rise up to the summer season discharge.

Evaporative losses are likely to be similar as those described under Alternative 2. Although inundation would begin earlier in the season under this alternative, water would not be held as long into the fall due to the lower elevations of the inlet/outlet channels compared to Alternative 2. The lower elevation of the inlet/outlet channels would allow surface water to flow back into the river unimpeded down to an elevation of 4039.75 feet, reducing the volume of water retained in the basin compared to Alternative 2 behind the higher channel elevations of 4040.75 feet. As a result, the length of time a standing pool of water would be held in the basin would be similar to Alternative 2 and the total difference in evaporative losses between the two alternatives is not likely to be measurable. Loss of surface water to the confined subsurface aquifer is also expected to similar to the low levels described under Alternative 2.

Although analysis of the stratigraphy and sediments in the basin make it unlikely, a scenario if no groundwater re-charge occurs within the basin and all surface water flowing into the basin were lost to subsurface aquifers was analyzed. This would result in a maximum of 3 cfs per channel (9 cfs total) flowing unimpeded into the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs under this alternative which is equal to <0.1% of the total river volume at this discharge. A maximum of 5,175 acre-feet of surface water, or <0.1% of the total acre-feet delivered to downstream users during the irrigation season, could move from the river during the course of the 3.5 month irrigation season under this scenario.

Stored versus Natural water:

The amount of natural versus stored water entering the Ryan Ranch slough basin would be the same as described under Alternative 2. All water entering the Ryan Ranch slough at or below a river discharge of 1,500 cfs in April is considered natural stream flow. The slough basin would also fill with 140 acre/feet of natural stream flows at a river discharge of 1,500 cfs under this alternative, which equates to 72% of the slough basin volume at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs. Alternative 3 would allow up to 82 acre/feet of natural stream flow to enter the basin before irrigation releases increased from Wickiup Dam in mid- April. The remaining 55 acre/feet of water necessary to fill the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs would also be considered stored water under this alternative and would be subject to evaporative losses described under Alternative 2. However, approximately 135 acre-feet of surface water would flow back into the river when the river discharge dropped to 700 cfs during the fall months.

Water Quality:

The project would have similar effects on the water quality parameters under Alternative 3 as described for Alternative 2. Changes to sediment and turbidity are likely to be beneficial but immeasurable following implementation of this project. Although Alternative 3 would allow water to enter the basin earlier than Alternative 2, the total length of inundation would be similar to Alternative 2 since the lower channel elevations would allow more of the pool water to directly return to the channel when the river discharge lowers. As a result, effects to water temperature are likely to be the same as those described under Alternative 2. There would be a higher risk of contributing chlorophyll a to the river channel due to the lower inlet/outlet channel elevations, although the concentrations are likely to be diluted by the river and not measurable within the channel.

Stream Flow

Existing losses of water from the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Bend include flow losses to subsurface aquifers from the river channel and floodplains as well as evaporative losses from the surface of the river channel and other inundated sloughs. These losses are currently calculated to be 7% of the river discharge and may include water interacting with the Ryan Ranch basin through the hyporheic zone (see Groundwater Effects Section). The addition of surface water to the Ryan Ranch basin through open channels would not alter the physical nature of the subsurface stratigraphy that comprises the hyporheic zone and is unlikely to affect existing subsurface flows. However, the additional head and volume of the water table within Ryan Ranch may create a potentiometric pressure that trends toward the river channel during periods of inundation. As a result, additional losses from the river via subsurface groundwater pathways in Ryan Ranch are expected to minimal and the long term indirect effects to the stream flow of the Deschutes River from subsurface losses are also expected to be minimal.

Losses of surface water anticipated from the Ryan Ranch project that could be additional to existing losses between Benham Falls and Bend would primarily be a result of evapotranspiration of surface water pooled within the Ryan Ranch basin during the three and a half month irrigation season. This is estimated to be approximately 55 acre-feet of stored water and 140 acre-feet of natural flow water each year, or <0.1% of the mean daily flows within the river. It is unlikely that that this amount would cumulatively affect the mean daily flow of the river enough to be detectable on existing river gages or reduce the ability of the Watermaster to deliver stored and natural flow waters to downstream users.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 3 Water Quality:

There are no measurable adverse long term direct effects to water quality from the implementation of this project. However, minimal changes to sediment input and turbidity of the river are expected to occur during implementation of the restoration activities but are expected to stabilize and be reduced from the existing condition in the short term. As a result, there are no anticipated effects to water quality from this project that could cumulatively affect the water quality of the Deschutes River in the long term.

Surface Water:

channels connected to deeper subsurface aquifers. This would result in approximately 9 cfs leaving the river throughout the course of the irrigation season, which would cumulatively add losses of approximately 11% to the 83 cfs currently lost between Benham Falls and Lava Island Falls. Although this could result in a total loss of 5,175 acre-feet of surface water from the river during the course of the 3.5 month irrigation season, geo-probe drilling and groundwater monitoring have not detected obvious losses of surface water in the basin to deep groundwater aquifers and anticipated losses to stream flow cumulative to existing losses are expected to be less than 1 cfs. There is a slight risk of effects to stream flow outside the irrigation season compared to Alternative 2 since natural flows above a river discharge level of 700 cfs would access the slough between October and March.

Effects

Alternative 4

Surface Water:

Alternative 4 would have similar effects to surface water as those described under Alternative 2 since the designed river access elevation would be the same (1,100 cfs river discharge or 4040.75 feet). Although the designed inlet/outlet channels for the pilot phase would utilize culverts instead of open channels to convey surface water between the river and the basin there would be no differences in the timing of access, rate of flow or amount of flow returned to the river in the fall. Adaptive Management Options A and B would likely remove these culverts and create open channel connections for the long term, resulting in the same effects to surface water as described under Alternative 2. Option C would remove the culverts and re-establish a disconnection between the river and the basin, resulting in the effects described for surface water under Alternative 1.

Stored versus Natural Water:

The design elevation under this alternative would be the same as for Alternative 2 and would result in the same interactions and flow of water between the river and the Ryan Ranch basin during the pilot phase. The slough basin would fill with 140 acre/feet of natural stream flows at a river discharge of 1,500 cfs, which equates to 72% of the slough basin volume at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs (Figure 15). The remaining 55 acre/feet of water necessary to fill the basin at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs would be considered stored water. The 55 acre-feet of stored water held within the natural floodplain of the Ryan Ranch basin during the period of inundation would contribute to the 195 acre-feet of total calculated evaporative losses each year. However, this loss from the river delivery system would be offset by the 75 acre-feet that returned to the river under gravity flow through the channels when the river discharge dropped in the fall. These interactions would be slightly altered under Adaptive Management B that resulted in fewer channel connections and completely altered under Adaptive Management C that closed all three channel connections.

Water Quality:

The project would have similar effects on the water quality parameters under Alternative 4 as described for Alternative 2. Changes to sediment and turbidity are likely to be beneficial but immeasurable following implementation of this project. Effects to water temperature are likely to be the same as those described under Alternative 2. The risk of contributing chlorophyll a to the river channel would be the

same as that described under Alternative 2, although the concentrations are likely to be diluted by the river and not measurable within the channel.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 4 Water Quality:

Surface Water:

The cumulative effects on surface water for Alternative 4 Options A and B would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. The cumulative effects for Alternative 4 Option C would be similar to the No Action alternative.

Water Rights

The need for a water right for this project was formally raised by the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) in response to the Proposed Action and an interview with former Bureau of Reclamation Hydrologist Harold W. Sexton. The discussion of water rights is a policy issue not included in the analysis of the Environmental Consequences. A complete discussion on water rights associated with this project is included in Appendix A of this document.

Wild and Scenic River Section 7 Free Flow Analysis:

Section 7a of the Wild and Scenic River Act requires a “free-flow” analysis for any federally funded or federally permitted water resources project proposed for construction on a Wild and Scenic river. Free- flowing is defined by section 16(b) of the Act as "existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The section 7a analysis addresses the compatibility of the proposed action to the free flowing character of the river and the Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified in the Resource Assessment for the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Environmental Impact Statement (UDWSR, 1996). The Forest Service is responsible for deciding whether or not the project will adversely affect these values.

The “Free Flow” analysis for the Ryan Ranch project was based on the document "Procedure to Evaluate Water Resources Projects", issued by the Washington Office of the U.S. Forest Service in 1992. The analysis of the potential impacts of the Ryan Ranch project on the character and "free flowing" nature of the river is included in Appendix C of the Free Flow Analysis, which is located in the project file. The analysis includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Ryan Ranch Project on the free flowing nature of the Deschutes River and the ORVs associated with the Wild and Scenic River designation. Proposed activities analyzed include:

• lowering and/or re-locating an existing berm structure, • constructing inlet/outlet channels to inundate a 65 acre historic floodplain slough basin, • restoring riverbank and floodplain elevations,

• constructing new riverbank, and • improving or adding recreational infrastructure.

The proposed action would restore portions of the Deschutes River channel and bank that were modified by the construction of a berm and requires a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. All proposed activities would occur on U.S. Forest Service land located at river mile 178.5 of the Deschutes River upstream of Bend.

Section 7 Determination and Evaluation of Consistency with Management Goals and Objectives.

The Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration project is located entirely on U.S. Forest Service land and is within segment 4C of the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River. The relevant Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified by the UDWSR Comprehensive Management Plan for the Geologic, Hydrologic, Fishery, Vegetation, Wildlife, Cultural, Scenic, and Recreation resources along this segment are listed and considered for each resource in Chapter 3 of this document. The Hydrologic resource is considered to have significant value in segment 4C. The effects of the proposed activities on these resources displayed in Chapter 3 and Appendix C supports a determination that the Ryan Ranch project will not adversely affect the ORVs applicable to segment 4C of the Wild and Scenic Corridor and is consistent with the Management Goals and Objectives of the UDWSR Comprehensive Management Plan. A copy of the complete Section 7a analysis and determination for the Ryan Ranch project is on file in the project record and incorporated by reference.

Rivers legislated under the Wild and Scenic River System are to be managed as near to a natural state as reasonably possible and activities that may alter the natural appearance and function of the river must be limited. Existing conditions at Ryan Ranch negatively affect the free flow characteristic of the Deschutes River due to the impoundment of the river by a berm structure that prevents it from accessing a natural floodplain within the Ryan Ranch basin. In addition, a large area of riprap is present along the bank that was installed prior to the Wild and Scenic designation. As a result, the river continues to scour the bank and erode numerous nickpoints along this reach. The Ryan Ranch Restoration Project proposes to re-connect the river with the natural floodplain basin and re-construct the geomorphology of the riverbank in order to restore the hydrology of the system and enhance the free flowing character of the river.

The restoration of the riparian and wetland components of the river and the Ryan Ranch slough basin would protect and enhance the values for which the river was designated as a Wild and Scenic River. There would be no adverse effects to the ORVs identified in the UDWSR Plan for the geologic, vegetation, cultural, scenic, recreational, fisheries or wildlife resources (see discussion of ORVs at the beginning of each resource section). The values would either not be affected or would be enhanced as a result of implementing the project. The significant values of the hydrologic resource represented by the free flowing characteristics of the river would be enhanced by this project by re-connecting the river to a natural historic floodplain, removing riprap and restoring riparian vegetation along the riverbank that is capable of minimizing erosion. Potential impacts to the free flow characteristics of the river from other components of the project such as the fetch ramp are minimized to the extent practicable.

Cultural Resources ______Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The pre-historic resources along the Upper Deschutes River Corridor have been identified by the UDWSR Plan as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Management direction for cultural resources is found in the following laws, regulations and protocols:

• Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) • Forest Service Manual section 2360 • Federal Regulations 36CR64 and 36CFR800 (amended December 2000) • National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) • National Environmental Policy Act • National Forest Management Act • Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the USDAFS Pacific Northwest Region (Region6), The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resources Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service.

In general, the existing management direction is to determine whether a proposed project may directly, or indirectly, affect cultural resources. Further direction indicates that the Forest will determine what cultural resources are present on the forest, evaluate each resource for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and protect or mitigate effects to resources that are eligible. The Programmatic Agreement (PA) allows the Forest Service to defer consensus determination of NRHP eligibility of cultural properties as long as the project will avoid all eligible cultural resources.

The following Cultural Resource guideline from the Deschutes LRMP is applicable to this project:

CR-4: Project level inventories, or intent to conduct such, shall be documented through environmental analysis for the project.

Existing Condition

There have been three previous cultural resource inventories conducted within and adjacent to the project area. These inventories were associated with the following projects: The Deschutes River Trail, the 1989 Black Bark Thinning, and A Recon Survey of Selected FS Lands along the Deschutes. As a result of these inventories four prehistoric sites were identified and recorded. One of the four sites was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The three remaining sites have not been evaluated for their significance to the NRHP. Therefore, the Forest considers these sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP until a formal determination of eligibility can be made. In addition to the prehistoric sites, one historic feature, a berm structure, was identified within the project area. Although the age of the berm structure qualifies it as a historic site, it is not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Presently, the three prehistoric sites have been subjected to a number of land use activities, which include logging, transportation, and developed and undeveloped recreation.

Historic activities within the project area occurred prior to the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws and regulations that guide the management of cultural resources. As such, the Forest is unable to quantitatively demonstrate the degree of impacts that may have affected any of the prehistoric sites from historic land use activities.

Effects

Alternative 1 No Action

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to cultural resources located within and adjacent to the project area. Recreational use of the area would remain the same. However visitor use is expected to increase over time. Dispersed hiking throughout the proposed project would continue in addition to the utilization of the river trail. Dispersed use of the area could indirectly affect cultural resources over time by establishing trails through cultural resource sites located within the project vicinity. Trails established within a site can cause soil erosion resulting in the exposure of artifacts, and horizontal and vertical displacement of artifacts, potentially affecting the integrity of the site. Exposure of artifacts also makes them vulnerable to collection or breakage.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Effects to cultural resources from Alternative 2, 3 and 4 are the same. The designed location of all new or improved recreational facilities avoids all NRHP eligible cultural resources. Therefore, no direct effects to cultural resource would occur as a result of the project. The construction of the trails and the placement of interpretive signing would likely encourage the public to stay within the existing trails, which could reduce the amount of dispersed hiking throughout the area and minimize damage to cultural resources from the establishment of unauthorized trails. However, new water edge ways that would result from flooding the meadow could act as an attractant to visitors, which may lead to the creation of trails along the waters edge, potentially affecting cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects to cultural resources from the project itself. However, cultural resources located adjacent to the project have been affected by historic logging and recreation. Visitor use has the potential to increase both within and surrounding the project area, which could lead to the creation of unauthorized trails through cultural resource sites. This could result in indirect cumulative effects to cultural resources over time.

Effects summary: The presence of historic and pre-historic cultural sites within and adjacent to the project area have been documented as part of this analysis. Due to the sensitive nature of pre-historic cultural resources, site specific documentation is not included in this document but is on file at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. All pre-historic sites identified by field surveys will be avoided by this project. Although the age of the berm structure qualifies it as historic site, it has not been recommended for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. As a result, none of the action alternatives would have adverse effects on either pre-historic or eligible historic cultural sites.

Berm Construction: Questions of ownership and construction have been raised during the scoping and analysis phases of this project. To date, no official record of construction has been found for the structure. A detailed 1915 survey of the Deschutes Valley - Central Oregon includes roads to Dillon

Falls and a corral area on the southern side of the meadow without a connection between the two (Gould, 1915). A map associated with the 1923 Irrigable Lands Survey also does not show a connection. However, a 1931 USGS quadrangle shows a road connection between these two roads in the apparent location of the existing berm structure and a 1943 aerial photograph shows a berm structure and road in place. The time period between the 1915 and 1931 maps spans the Columbia Southern Reclamation project (1913-1933), during which private ownership of Ryan Ranch was withdrawn by the U.S. Government in anticipation of dam construction at Dillon Falls. No records of a Flood Easement to private landowners as a result of this withdrawal have been located. This project also funded improvements along the Upper Deschutes River to reduce water loss from the channel, which may have included the structure across Ryan Ranch Meadow. However, the Columbia Southern Project was revoked by the U.S. Government in 1933 and the property was restored to Open Entry to formally acknowledge a return to private ownership the same year. Records from this project were requested from the Bureau of Reclamation Bend Field Office in April of 2010 but were not found in the archives of the Salem office re-located to Yakima, Washington (Coleman, personnel communication).

Berm Ownership: The U.S. Forest Service claims ownership and administrative authority of the berm structure as deeded landowner in the absence of clear documentation of the original construction. The Chain of Title and copy of the Deed clearly show transfer of property ownership from the Shevlin-Hixon Company to the United States Forest Service (USFS) in 1944. Based on aerial photographs of the site, improvements to the berm structure are obvious between the 1943 and 1953 and former BOR hydrologist Harold Sexton has apparently stated that they were made by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1947. However, no reference of the structure can be found in the Annual Project Histories of the Deschutes Reclamation Project, which was authorized in 1937 and funded the construction of Wickiup Dam, and the BOR has not provided evidence of ownership upon inquisition of this issue. In addition, an existing Special Use maintenance agreement between the Forest Service and Central Oregon Irrigation District that includes three levees above Benham Falls on the east side of the river does not include the berm structure at Ryan Ranch, which is located on the west side of the river.

Scenic Quality______

Management Direction Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The mix of geologic, hydrologic, vegetative and wildlife resources found along portions of Segment 4 make scenery an Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

Existing condition: The Ryan Ranch Restoration Project is located within Segment 4C.

UDWSR Scenery Standard: The scenic integrity will be protected and enhanced by blending natural and cultural elements of the landscape to be consistent with the expected physical and social setting of the designated Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

Existing condition: The ROS classification for segment 4C is Roaded Natural which is a combination of three indicators, including Road Access (Roaded Natural); Recreational Sites (Rural); and Private Property (Roaded Natural).

The Forest Plan describes the Roaded Natural classification as an area that “is characterized by predominantly natural appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans… Resource modification...is evident, but harmonize(s) with the natural environment” (Deschutes LRMP, Appendix 2-1).

The following Scenic Quality guidelines are applicable to the project:

S-1: Except for developed sites, the Wild and Scenic River Segment 4C will be managed to meet a Scenic Quality Level (SMS) of High Scenic Integrity and Visual Quality Standard (VMS) of Retention.

Effects Alternative 1: Under the No Action alternative, there would be no steps taken to restore the meadow or riverbanks along Ryan Ranch. Maintenance of the Deschutes River Trail would occur to address continued erosion of the existing river banks, but as needed rather than an integrated restoration. Willows would not be planted to screen the area from boaters on the river.

Effects Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: Restoration activities under action alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would visually modify the existing riverbank and artificial berm structure during construction but would create natural topographic and vegetative conditions that would meet a Scenic Quality Level of High Scenic Integrity and a Visual Quality Standard of Retention in the long term. Active planting of native sedges and willows would minimize the short term disturbance to scenic quality and protect the existing natural scenic conditions on the site.

The construction of boardwalk sections paralleling the river would create a structure within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor that is immediately adjacent to the developed Dillon Falls trailhead, picnic and boat ramp area. The proposed boardwalk and ADA accessible trail are designed with horizontal features and low rails to minimize impacts to the scenic quality experienced by a river user along this reach. Vegetative planting of willows would be designed to break up the appearance of the boardwalk as viewed from the river and from road access points.

The installation of up to three culverts under the Pilot Phase of Alternative 4 would temporarily modify the area’s scenic quality through ground disturbance during construction and create an unnatural feature within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. However, the majority of the culvert length would be buried and not visible, with one end exposed in the river channel only under low water conditions and the majority of the other end on the basin side covered. These culverts would be removed from the site following the Pilot Phase and the connections would be turned into natural open channels or vegetated river bank and floodplain in the short term. This would then meet Scenic Quality Levels of High Scenic Integrity and Visual Quality Standards of Retention.

Cumulative Effects: Ongoing treatment of reed canarygrass at Ryan Ranch through the use of herbicides could create short-term impacts to the visuals. This could occur during the timeframe of restoration activities which would add to the temporary modification of the visuals. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects that would impact the visual quality of the immediate vicinity of Ryan Ranch.

Figure 20. Artist rendition of boardwalk and restored riverbank and plant community along Ryan Ranch

S-2: Developed sites will be managed to meet a Scenic Quality Level (SMS) of Low Scenic Integrity and Visual Quality Standard (VMS) of Modification or higher. River access will enhance the recreational experience while protecting scenic qualities. Site development will blend with the landscape to the extent possible.

Existing Condition: The Dillon Falls trailhead, boat ramp and picnic area is a developed site within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor that is designated as a river access point in the UDWSR.

Effects of Alternative 1: There would be no change to the developed site at Dillon Falls trailhead, and therefore no effect to the scenic quality level.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: The expansion or development of recreational facilities under the action alternatives 2, 3 and 4 includes the construction of a hardened human and dog access ramp at a spot that is currently visually modified by the presence of large, unnatural boulders placed in 1980 to stabilize the bank. The design and construction of the access ramp would meet a Scenic Quality Level of Low Scenic Integrity and a Visual Quality Standard of Modification but likely improve the scenic quality experienced by the river user by removing the large boulders that are above high water line and placing gravel and soil material on a recessed honeycomb geogrid. All additional boulders above the high water line would also be removed as part of the restoration activities. The parking areas, ADA accessible CXT toilet, and ADA accessible trail would meet a Scenic Quality Level of Low Scenic Integrity and a Visual Quality Standard of Modification and would utilize existing or planted vegetation to screen scenic quality impacts to users of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in the immediate vicinity of the Dillon Falls trailhead that would impact the scenic quality level.

S-4: Developed recreation sites will be designed and managed to reduce visibility from the river.

Effects of Alternative 1: There would be no change to the developed recreation site, and therefore there would be no effect to the current visibility of the area from the river.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: The proposed location of the CXT toilet, ADA accessible parking and bus parking for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 is over 850 feet from the river and within a stand of trees that would provide a visual screen and reduce visibility from the river. The designated non-commercial and ADA accessible parking area located within 300 feet of the river are screened from the boat ramp and the nearest portions of the river by existing trees and vegetation that will not be altered under any alternatives analyzed for this project. Additional vegetative screening will be provided by willows planted along the restored sections of the riverbank. The majority of barrier-free trail that is not boardwalk is located on flat ground that would not visible from the river. Interpretive signs along the ADA trail and boardwalk would also have vegetation such as planted willows that would provide a visual screen.

There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects that would cumulatively impact the visibility of the site from the river.

Recreation______Management Direction Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): Recreation is identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value in the UDWSR Plan for Segment 4 due to the range of activities, the variety of interpretive opportunities, and the attraction of the river for vacationers from outside of the region. UDWSR Recreation Standard: A variety of recreational values will be provided within a predominantly natural setting without adversely affecting other river values. The following recreational guidelines are applicable to the project:

R-1: Total use will be managed according to designed annual capacities...which will serve as a basis for site designation and development. The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) standards and resource protection needs will determine the total number, location and development levels of recreation sites.

Existing condition: The ROS designation for Recreational Sites in Segment 4 is classified as Rural, under which the UDWSR allows a range of 6 to 15 developed sites per river mile. There are currently 22 designated recreation sites within the 1.8 mile long Segment 4C, including picnic area, boat ramp and trailhead parking, for an average of 12 sites per river mile.

The designed annual capacity for Segment 4 as a whole is listed under the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Record of Decision as 44,000 annual non-commercial use days accessed by a total of 116 developed sites. This accommodates an anticipated increase in use of 11,000 annual visits from the 33,000 use days identified as the existing condition in 1996.

Effects of Alternative 1: Under the No Action alternative, the number of sites in the Wild and Scenic River corridor would not change and the expected number of annual visitors would be the same as the existing condition.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: The Ryan Ranch Restoration Project proposes to designate up to 5 additional parking sites at the Dillon Falls trailhead area under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The additional sites would increase the existing number of sites per river mile for Segment 4C from 12 to 15, which would be within the indicator range of 6 to 15 designated recreation sites for river segments with a rural Recreation Site classification. Anticipated increases in total use as a result of these additional designated recreation sites are expected to be accommodated within the designed annual capacity of non-commercial use days for this segment in the UDSWR.

R-3: Development of facilities will only occur if use levels indicate additional developed site capacity is needed. Expansion of existing facilities will be considered before development of new facilities. Barrier-free facilities will be provided in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Existing condition: Field ranger observations of parking, trail and river use between Dillon Falls and Benham Falls indicate the heaviest use of the Dillon Falls portal is on weekends and during summer months.

Effects of Alternative 1: Under the No Action alternative, the expected use levels would not change and facilities would not be expanded.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: The Ryan Ranch Restoration Project proposes to expand existing facilities associated with the Dillon Falls portal area under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 as a result of anticipated increases in total use and use by those in need of ADA accessibility. The additional educational use-days anticipated as a result of the implementation of this project are expected to occur primarily during weekdays. The project proposes to expand or improve parking and restroom facilities at an existing portal site within the Wild and Scenic Corridor. The project also proposes to develop barrier-free trail and restroom facility access at the site.

R-4: All dispersed and developed sites within 300 feet of the river will be reviewed to determine effects on river values.

Effects of Alternative 1: Under the No Action alternative, there would no be change to the existing dispersed and developed sites within the river corridor.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: The improvement of the existing developed parking sites, as well as the proposed construction of boardwalk and trail structures, are located and designed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 to minimize effects and maintain compliance to the river values in the Wild and Scenic Corridor.

R-20: Educational programs which promote understanding of river ecosystems will be given preference when issuing new special use permits.

Effects of Alternative 1: Under Alternative 1, no additional educational programs would be developed.

Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include the development of an ADA accessible interpretive trail and boardwalk loop for the general public and local school science, art and outdoor access education programs. The interpretive component of the project is intended to educate the public about the restoration of wetlands and riverbank morphology, the long term functions of wetlands within a watershed, the role of managed water use in society, and the connection between upper and lower portions of a watershed.

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: No other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects would add facilities in the river corridor. The Ryan Ranch project is located on a high use section of the Deschutes River Trail. The Welcome Station Trails Connection project is currently in the planning stages. Trail connections under the preferred alternative of that project would provide an alternate route to the Deschutes River trail for mountain bikers returning to Bend and Sunriver. This is expected to relieve trail congestion along the Deschutes River Trail between Slough Day use and Bend.

Existing Condition Recreational Opportunity Spectrum The Ryan Ranch project area lies adjacent to the existing Dillon Falls Recreation site within a 1.8 mile reach of the Deschutes River designated as segment 4C under the UDWSR. The reach extends from Slough Camp to Dillon Falls and is classified as a Scenic River Area. The segment includes 22 developed recreation sites consisting of parking for trailheads, boat ramps and day use picnicking (UDWSR, Table 5; Table 6). The UDWSR determined the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification for segment 4C to be Roaded Natural (UWSR, Table 5). Three indicators were blended to determine this overall ROS classification (UDWSR, E-1; E-2 Table E-1), including: • the ratio of recreation sites to river miles • the ratio of parallel road miles within the Wild and Scenic Corridor to river miles, and • the percentage of private property within the Wild and Scenic Corridor. For Segment 4C, the ROS classification for the three indicators is Rural for the number of existing recreation sites per river mile (22 sites/1.8 river miles = 12 sites per mile), Roaded Natural for road access (zero parallel road miles), and Roaded Natural for private property (zero acres). Current day use at the Dillon Falls access point includes hiking, biking and picnicking, as well as commercial and non-commercial flat water boating. The designed annual capacity for Segment 4 as a whole (Sunriver to Meadow Camp) is listed in the UDSWR as 44,000 non-commercial use days annually utilizing a total of 123 developed sites, and 65,000 commercial use days annually utilizing the boat ramps. Use numbers have likely increased from the 33,000 non-commercial use days reported as the existing condition in the 1996 UDSWR Plan as a result of increases in resident and tourist populations over the last 15 plus years. Use of the parking areas at Dillon Falls can exceed the existing capacity of designated parking sites on weekend days during the late spring, summer and

early fall months. The parking areas proposed for improvement and designation under this project are often used under the current use patterns.

Effects Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Alternative 1 The No Action alternative would result in no changes to the existing number of designated recreation sites at the Dillon Falls portal site and would have no effect on the Rural ROS designation of the Wild and Scenic River Segment 4C. The No Action alternative would have no effect on the two other indicators considered for the overall ROS classification of Roaded Natural for this segment. As a result, the overall ROS classification for this segment would not change under this alternative. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 The addition of five designated developed parking sites at the Dillon Falls Recreation site would increase the number of developed sites for Segment 4C from 22 to 27. This addition would change the number of developed recreation sites per river mile from 12 to 15, which is still within the range of a Rural ROS classification for this indicator (UDWSR, Table E-1). The proposed activities would have no effect on the two other indicators considered for the overall ROS classification. The overall ROS classification for this segment would not change as a result of this project.

The Ryan Ranch project proposes to improve and designate additional parking to accommodate existing and anticipated increases in use at the site. Increases in non-commercial use numbers for segment 4C are likely to occur as a result of this project. An increase in use within Segment 4 is in accordance with the UDWSR Plan, which allowed for an increase in non-commercial Designed Annual Capacity from 33,000 to 44,000 (UDWSR, 1996). The addition of five developed parking sites would provide approximately 4,600 additional user days if utilized once per day over the entire year. Access to this site is generally limited to March through October, which would allow for multiple cars per day, per site and remain within the 11,000 additional use days allocated for the Designed Annual Capacity under the UDWSR Plan. Use of the site by local public school education programs that anticipate up to 500 school children during three week periods in May and September would also be accommodated within these numbers.

The expansion of existing facilities at the Dillon Falls site would be implemented in accordance with Recreation Guidelines R-3 and R-4 to minimize new development portals, provide barrier free facilities, and minimize or mitigate effects to river values.

Recreational Experience: The new location of the Deschutes River Trail would parallel the existing route and maintain a through pathway for all existing trail users under all action alternatives. • Alternatives 2 and 3 would move approximately 0.25 miles of the existing trail up to 50 feet west onto earthen substrate raised with fill. Approximately 0.11 miles of trail would be converted to two sections of 8 foot wide boardwalk to connect the trail over flooded areas of the basin. • Alternative 4 would move approximately 0.33 miles of trail up to 50 feet west onto a re-located berm in its entirety. Bridge crossings over the inlet/outlet channels would be constructed and maintained under Adaptive Management options A and B. Option C would require no bridges to maintain the trail throughway. The recreational trail experience of through hikers, runners and bikers in this area would be minimally affected as a result of converting the trail tread to allow barrier free access. However, the trail and site improvements proposed for the area are likely to increase localized use of the Ryan

Ranch area and are subsequently likely to increase the number of trail encounters a through trail recreationist might have along this section of trail. The re-location of the Deschutes River trail may affect the recreational experience for users with Ryan Ranch as their primary destination. Restoration of the river floodplain elevations and hydrology between the trail and the river would reduce the direct accessibility of the river’s edge to most users unwilling to get their feet wet, although the river would still be in sight from the re-located trail. Changes in the trail location and trail type would also affect dog owners that utilize the area. Current access along nearly the entire length of the meadow area would be reduced by the re-location of the trail, construction of the boardwalk and restoration of the riverbank. However, the project would provide a hardened access ramp to the river for both human and dog use to offset this reduction in dry access and replace the heavily used access at a primary river nick point on the outside bend of the river. The development of an ADA accessible 0.5 mile interpretive loop trail on the site would provide an outdoor trail experience for recreationists of all ages and access abilities. Disabled recreationists would have access to an outdoor experience on the National Forest that is not currently available in the area. Approximately half of the loop trail would utilize the Deschutes River Trail where trail encounters with bicyclists and hikers would occur. Bicyclists may choose to walk their bikes through the River Trail boardwalk sections that share the interpretive loop in order to reduce the speed of these encounters, but there would not be a requirement to do so initially. The portions of the loop trail that are separate from the River Trail would have limited bicycle traffic and would provide slower traffic encounters for users experiencing the interpretive loop. Cumulative Effects The addition of five developed sites within Segment 4 as a result of this project would not cumulatively exceed the site threshold identified by the UDWSR Plan for Segment 4C and the designed annual capacity for Segment 4. There are no other developed sites for non-commercial access proposed by this or any other current or reasonably foreseeable projects within this segment.

Use on this portion of the Deschutes River Trail is high. The Welcome Station Trails Connection project is currently in the planning stages. Trail connections under the preferred alternative of that project would provide an alternate route to the Deschutes River trail for mountain bikers returning to Bend and Sunriver. This is expected to relieve trail congestion along the Deschutes River Trail between Slough Day use and Bend.

Fisheries ______

An Aquatics Biological Evaluation (BE) and Fisheries report completed for the Ryan Ranch project are in the project file and incorporated by reference.

Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): Fisheries are regarded as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) in Segment 4 of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, in part because of the presence of native redband trout.

UDWSR Fisheries Standard: Protect and enhance habitat for self-sustaining populations of brown and native trout.

Applicable UDWSR fisheries guideline includes:

F-1: Woody material, gravel, cobbles, and boulders may be added to the river to improve fish habitat.

Toe-wood and fish habitat structures proposed for this project would be constructed below high water line of the river and consist of ponderosa pine and lodgepole trees with root wads and limbs attached. Gravels and cobbles incorporated into the dog and human access ramp replicate representative substrate size class for the channel. The project proposes to remove the large boulders that are currently in place above high water line.

Deschutes Forest Plan: Applicable Standards & Guidelines from the Deschutes LRMP include:

FI-4: Habitat Improvement work will be pursued based on the contribution of the work to fishery objectives and targets. Improvement work will adopt measures to protect other resources as needed.

FI-5: Site specific riparian prescriptions will be developed to enhance the contributions of riparian vegetation to fish habitat quality. Prescriptions will be developed to enhance the recruitment of large organic material and to optimize water temperatures for fish production.

RP-5: Identify and pursue opportunities in riparian areas for enhancement of fisheries and wildlife habitat.

RP-10: Manage woody debris and riparian vegetation to: 1) maintain or enhance stream channel and bank structure, and 2) provide structural fish habitat to meet the objectives for resident fish populations provided for in the Forest Plan.

Inland Native Fish Strategy: INFISH direction includes specific Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for forested and non-forested stream systems. The project area is non-forested but becomes forested immediately upriver and downriver. According to INFISH, not all of the described features may occur within a specific stream segment of a stream within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate size. The RMOs applicable to a non- forested system are pool frequency, water temperature, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width/depth ratio. Additional RMO’s for forested systems includes large woody debris.

Applicable INFISH Standards and Guidelines for both Watershed and Habitat Restoration and Fisheries Restoration include: WR-1, FW-1 & FW-2 and would met by this project. Channel and bank restoration would contribute toward the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (FW-1) and promote the long term ecological integrity of a historic slough of the Deschutes River (WR-1); and proposed trail and recreation facilities are designed to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and do not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely affect inland native fish (FW- 2).

Existing Condition

Species: Species considered to be resident fish in the Deschutes River within the project area are the redband trout, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin, and brown trout. Native fish populations include redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and sculpin (Cottus sp.). There are no records of anadromous species in the project area, as upriver migratory fish passage is considered to be restricted to below Big Falls on the Deschutes River downriver of Bend (ODFW, 1996). Over the last 100 years, several other fish species have been introduced into the basin, including rainbow trout, considerably altering the fish community. Although redband trout, a sub-species of rainbow trout, interbreed with various hatchery stocks of rainbow trout, evaluation of the genetic make-up of trout near the project area revealed, on average, 92.8% pure redband genetics (Phelps, et al, 1996). There are resident, fluvial and adfluvial populations of redband trout along the Upper Deschutes River. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are considered to be extirpated from the Deschutes River above Bend (ODFW, 1996). See the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Environmental Impact Statement (1996) and the ODFW Upper Deschutes River Sub-basin Plan (1996) for additional information on the fisheries resource.

Habitat: Redband seek cover in the stream environment provided by large woody material, undercut banks, boulders, depth, and turbulence. Redband also require clean gravels for spawning, preferably in the 0.25" - 2.0" range. All of these habitat qualities are lacking in the reach of river along Ryan Ranch. Channel bottom substrates have high volumes of fine sediments (sand and silt), which are primarily a result of widespread erosion of riverbanks in upriver reaches. Bank stability and bank angle have not been measured but much of the riverbank within the project area is unstable and continues to erode (see Figure 2). Data from a 2005 Deschutes National Forest stream survey from Meadow Camp upriver to the Benham Falls footbridge (8.42 river miles) and three on-site cross- sections show that INFISH RMOs for pool frequency, water temperatures, large woody debris, and width/depth ratios are not being met along this reach of the river.

Essential Fish Habitat: There would be no effects to Essential Fish Habitat from any alternative. Although the Upper Deschutes 4th field watershed (17070301) is mapped by the National Marine Fisheries Service as Essential Fish Habitat for chinook salmon, there are no present or historical records of chinook populations above Big Falls on the Deschutes River, over 50 miles downriver from the project area.

Summary of Effects to Fisheries:

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4: The project is consistent with the applicable Deschutes LRMP Standards and Guidelines, INFISH RMOs, INFISH Standards and Guidelines, and the UDWSR Plan as a result of protecting, improving and maintaining riparian areas, water quality and fish habitat. Habitat improvements proposed under this project contribute to fishery objectives and targets for the Upper Deschutes River (LRMP FI-4) and utilize site specific prescriptions that return native riparian vegetation, increase large woody debris, and provide shade along nearly 0.3 miles of stream bank (LRMP FI-5). The proposed actions would maintain or improve INFISH RMOs and the fisheries ORV identified in the UDWSR Plan by stabilizing riverbanks and protecting water quality parameters affecting fish, including sedimentation, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, Chlorophyll a, and water temperatures.

Effects Determination for Redband Trout: The project may impact redband trout individuals or habitat (MIIH) in the short term (<1 year) but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability (Aquatics BE, project file). The impacts are associated with river bank

disturbance during the implementation of the restoration activities. In the long term (>1 year) the project would have beneficial impacts to redband trout habitat.

Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action):

No direct effects to fisheries would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. There would be no disturbance of instream habitat or bank habitat from management activities. Continued sloughing and erosion of existing river banks could indirectly affect spawning habitat by contributing fine sediment to the channel bottom. The existing lack of cover along the bank would continue to minimize utilization and growth of the fishery along this reach of the river.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Restoration: The restoration components of the project, including lowering the berm to restore riverbank and floodplain elevations, revegetating the riverbank with native vegetation, constructing new riverbank, and placement of instream large woody debris structures, would have would have short term and long term effects to fisheries.

Approximately 0.77 acres of existing riverbank would be modified and 0.2 acres of fill would be added to construct a bankfull floodplain bench. The placement of toewood within the river channel and the construction and alteration of riverbanks would directly contribute sediment to the river from these areas during the work period. Residual soil attached to the root wads of the toewood could also wash off during placement or from subsequent rainfall. The installation of toewood, lowering of riverbank and berm elevations, and excavation of the inlet/outlet channels would all create exposed soil capable of washing into the stream. However, project design features include the restriction of equipment to working outside the channel and within a period of low instream flows to help minimize the direct contribution of sediment during the restoration work. In addition, transplanted sedge mats and plugs would help cover exposed soil along the restored riverbank and dam controlled river flows would not reach the newly established riverbank elevations for approximately five months. As a result of the implementation of Best Management Practices and Project Design Features during restoration activities no adverse measurable effects are likely in the short term (<1 year) to fisheries as a result of sedimentation or turbidity.

Fine sediments that do reach the river channel could plug the interspaces of substrate gravels, reducing the survival rates of developing fish embryos buried within, and limiting habitat for aquatic invertebrates (Meehan, 1991). Although the proposed actions could lead to a temporary increase in sediment and turbidity capable of affecting aquatic invertebrate habitat, actual degradation of fish spawning habitat is unlikely since there appears to be minimal spawning within the project area due to a lack of adequate substrate. The nearest downriver spawning area that could potentially be affected by increased sedimentation is below Dillon Falls, located approximately 0.5 miles downriver. Redband trout primarily spawn in the spring, so any increases in sedimentation from the fall restoration activities would occur outside of their spawning period. However, brown trout and mountain whitefish spawn primarily in November and December and the eggs hatch primarily in February and March. Although some overlap may occur between the project implementation schedule and the spawning season of brown trout and mountain whitefish, the total sediment introduced and the distance to the spawning beds are likely to minimize direct deposition on these beds.

Turbidity and sedimentation would be reduced within the project area over the long term as a result of a stabilized riverbank, although changes would likely be immeasurable. The placement of habitat structures, restoration of the riverbanks, and re-vegetation with native sedges and willows would reduce erosion and associated turbidity and sedimentation in the long term (>1 year). Best Management Practices and Project Design Features during restoration activities are likely to reduce turbidity and total sediment contributed to the river over the long term (>1 year).

Fish Habitat: The addition of approximately 100 pieces of large woody material to the river and riverbanks would improve habitat for redband trout, other fish species, and aquatic invertebrates that provide forage for fish. The habitat structures and revegetation efforts would improve fisheries habitat by creating a narrower, deeper channel and increasing shading along this reach. Measurable changes to water quantity or water temperature capable of affecting the local fishery are unlikely as a result of these actions. The removal of boulders from the existing rip-rap area at the downriver end of the project would also provide the opportunity to increase vegetated riverbank and improve fish habitat.

The size of the Ryan Ranch basin presents a risk that some fish could be stranded in the basin pool after the river discharge level dropped below 1,100 cfs. However, the stranding of fish within the slough basin is anticipated to be minimal and fish stranding does not appear to be a problem in other sloughs along the river. The seasonal inundation of approximately 70 acres of meadow is likely to increase the temperature of river water in the slough basin as a result of radiational heating in the 0.5 to 6 foot depths of standing water during the summer. Although actual increases are not known, water temperatures measured in the North Slough during the summer were as high as 75º F, exceeding the 65-70º F temperatures that decrease dissolved oxygen levels and would likely move Redband trout and other fish species that may have entered the wetland during the filling period back into the river before the fall.

Water is anticipated to move out of the wetland back into the river in the fall when river flow decreases. This return flow is expected to have minimal effects on water temperatures within the river since water temperatures within the slough will have decreased as ambient air temperatures and sun angles decrease. Approximately 3 cfs would re-enter the river from the wetland, again accounting for approximately only <0.1% of the flow within the river. An unknown amount of water stored beneath the surface of the wetland may also seep back into the river at this time that is anticipated to be cooler than the river. Since water quality would not be measurably adversely affected by these actions (see Hydrology Section), redband trout and other fish species and their habitats would not be adversely affected.

Construction of the boardwalk would occur across a portion of the wetland requiring piers to be installed within the wetland. Some wetland soils would be disturbed during placement of the boardwalk piers, but there would be no affect to sedimentation or turbidity within the river since construction is scheduled to occur before restoration activities have connected surface water to the slough basin. Construction of trail on raised fill and upland soil locations to re-connect the River Trail and complete an interpretive loop would occur within portions of the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA). However, the disturbed mineral soil would not be inundated with water and would not result in adverse effects to riparian vegetation or water quality. These actions would not affect water quality and there would be no adverse effects to redband trout or their habitat, nor any adverse effects to other fish species or their habitat from these actions. There would be no effects from the improvement of parking areas or the construction of a toilet because these activities are located greater than 300 feet from the river.

Cumulative Effects - Alternative 2

The actions proposed under Alternative 2 would not have measurable cumulative effects to the local fishery when considered with dam controlled river flows, sedimentation from upriver riverbank instability, competition with non-native fish species, and angling. The restoration of riparian vegetation and the addition of large wood habitat structures would have beneficial effects to redband trout and other fish species habitat as a result of stabilized riverbanks and increased cover along this reach. Incidental stranding of fish within the inundated meadow during the summer would have minimal cumulative effects to redband trout and other fish species. Construction of boardwalk and relocation of the trail would have no cumulative effects to redband trout or other fish species.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have similar effects and cumulative effects to the fisheries resource as described under Alternative 2. Although the lowered elevation of the inlet/outlet channels would allow fish to enter the slough basin approximately one month earlier in the spring, fish remaining in the basin late in the irrigation season would be less likely to become stranded as river discharge levels decreased in the fall due to the lower inlet/outlet channel elevations. However, the pool left behind at the 700 cfs discharge level would be smaller than under Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would have similar effects and cumulative effects to the fisheries resource as described under Alternative 2. The elevation of the inlet/outlet channels would be the same as described for Alternative 2. The culverts installed during the pilot phase would have fish screens on them with ¼” or greater mesh that would prevent juvenile and adult fish from entering the Ryan Ranch basin. Adaptive Management Options A and B would recreate open channels similar to those under Alternative 2 which would allow open passage into the floodplain slough for fish in the long term. However, temperature rises in the slough waters during the summer are likely to reduce dissolved oxygen levels and minimize juvenile and adult fish holding in the slough. In addition, open channels connecting the river and the slough basin would provide unimpeded exit back to the river. As a result, fish stranding under this alternative is expected to be minimal. Adaptive Management Option C would close all channels and maintain conditions similar to those described under the No Action alternative.

Consistency with INFISH: Riparian Management Objectives

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Pool frequency: Even under historic conditions prior to flow regulation, pool frequency width/depth ratios were most likely not met. The average bankfull width of the Deschutes River in the project area is 167 feet. According INFISH, there should be between 9 and 12 pools/mile (Table 3). Although there are currently 2.9 pools/mile along this reach of the river, this value likely approximates the historic frequency. Spring-fed systems often have low pool frequencies and are dominated by glide habitats or long pools. The stream survey determined that the reach was composed of 75% pool habitat. Low pool frequency but high percentage of pool habitat is typical of the Deschutes River above Bend. The project would not have an effect on pool frequency.

Table 3. INFISH Interim objectives for pool frequency

Wetted width of 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 200 channel (feet) Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9

Water temperature: The state water temperature standards are not being met as described earlier. Much of the Deschutes River upriver of Bend also does not meet the state standards. The project would have a beneficial effect on water temperatures by reducing the width/depth ratio of the channel and increasing shade provided by vegetation along the bank. Changes to temperature in the river are likely to be immeasurable following implementation of this project.

Large woody debris: This feature is not met under existing conditions, as there is less than 20 pieces of woody debris/mile (presently 10 pieces/mile) for the reach surveyed. Considering the project area itself is non-forested, large woody debris is expected to be limited. Much of the Deschutes River above Bend does meet this objective. The project would increase the pieces of large woody debris within the project area.

Bank Stability and lower bank angle: These features have not been measured, but active erosion is evident within the project area. Riverbanks are relatively stable within the 8.42 miles of surveyed reach and exceed the objective. Much of the Deschutes River above Bend has active riverbank erosion. The project would improve riverbank stability and lower bank angle.

Width/depth Ratio: The existing width/depth ratio within the project area determined from cross- section surveys is 23.7:1, exceeding the <10:1 ratio objective listed in INFISH. This ratio has likely increased since flow regulation began more 60 years ago at Wickiup Dam. Width has increased 20% during this time (Deschutes NF, 1996). However, the ratio was likely not under 10:1 prior to regulation. Spring-fed systems often have naturally high width/depth ratios. Width/depth ratios generally exceed 20:1 for reaches of the Deschutes River upriver of Bend. The project would reduce the width/depth ratio by less than 1.

Wildlife ______

A Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation have been prepared and are located in the project file. These documents address effects of the project on federally proposed or listed candidate, threatened, or endangered species. They also address effects to Region 6 sensitive species, Management Indicator Species, ecological indicator species and/or habitats, Birds of Conservation Concern, Focal Bird Species, High Priority Shorebirds and the habitat components associated with these species. Information in the Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation are included in this section of the EA.

Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The Wildlife resource is identified in the UDWSR as an Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV) in Segment 4 for the diversity of bird

populations. The ORVs identified in the UDWSR as related to species addressed by this report would not be negatively affected by the proposed actions. The proposed actions that include inundating the meadow would enhance bird populations. The Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for both wildlife and vegetation would be met including: V6, and W-3.

UDWSR Wildlife Standard: Management activities will maintain Outstandingly Remarkable wildlife populations and diversity of species within the corridor.

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified in the UDWSR Plan for species applicable to the project area and addressed by the wildlife analysis would not be negatively affected by the proposed actions. The proposed actions would enhance bird populations by restoring approximately 65 acres of habitat utilized by migratory songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors. (see Wildlife Biological Evaluation/Specialist report in the project file).

Applicable UDWSR Wildlife guidelines:

W-3: Special management for Bald eagle and Key Elk habitat directed in the 1990 Forest Plan will continue. The project has no resident Bald Eagle nests. The project lies within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area and is consistent with direction in the Deschutes LRMP for management of this allocation. Boardwalk and fill enhanced high ground will be utilized to maintain the Deschutes River Trail within the existing corridor through the Key Elk Area. Additional willow and sedge habitat will be created by the project. Complex habitat for grazing and calving will be indirectly created in the 50 plus acres west of the slough basin as a result of higher groundwater levels in the area.

Deschutes Forest Plan: The project would be consistent with applicable Wildlife Standards & Guidelines from the Deschutes LRMP if implemented under the Project Design Criteria listed in this document (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Wildlife Consistency for the Deschutes National Forest LRMP

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4 Alt. 1 Standards and Guidelines (Proposed (No Action) Action) Bald Eagle WL-1 Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Red tail hawk WL-3 (protect active nest sites from disturbance within ¼ mile Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent March 1-August 31) Osprey WL-2-5 (protect active nest sites from disturbance within ¼ mile Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent April 1 – August 31) Great gray owl WL-30 (provide habitat for 8 Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent great gray owl nesting pairs) WL-31 (protect active nest sites-- Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4 Alt. 1 Standards and Guidelines (Proposed (No Action) Action) habitat) WL-32 (maintain forested perimeter of meadow) Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent WL-33 (protect active nest sites from disturbance within ¼ mile Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent March 1-June 30) WL-34 (compromise nest restriction period if inactive by Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent May 15) Great Blue Heron WL-35 (addresses disturbance and maintenance of nest trees Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent should nest be encountered) Woodpeckers WL-37 (Snag Retention) Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Waterfowl WL-39 (Increase waterfowl Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent production where possible) Deer and elk WL-43 (key elk areas) Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent WL-45 (Recreation Management Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent in Key Elk Areas)

Consistency with Eastside Screens Standards and Guidelines The Eastside Screens Standards do not apply to this project because they apply to timber sales and this is not a timber sale.

Key Elk Areas (KEAs): Areas that provide critical elk habitat are allocated in the LRMP as Key Elk Habitat Areas (LRMP 4-56, Standard and Guideline WL-43 and Appendix 16). Applicable Standard and Guidelines for KEHAs include:

WL-43: “Management will provide conditions needed to support at least 1,500 summering elk and 240 wintering elk within KEAs.”

Conditions are met for Ryan Ranch Key elk area because thermal cover is providing on about 40% of the area and hiding areas are present in about 30% of the area.

WL-44: “The management of riparian areas will incorporate elk calving needs to the extent they do not conflict with the needs or objectives of riparian-dependent resource management.”

Nearly the entire project area is within a Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) as defined by INFISH (USDA 1995). Waterbodies in the project area include the Deschutes River and Ryan Ranch ‘wetland’. RHCA widths for category 1 fish bearing streams are 300 feet and 150 feet for wetlands > 1acre. Inundation of the meadow with water is likely to raise groundwater elevations in the lower Kiwa Creek drainage which would favor aspen and willow species over conifers. This is likely to incrementally increase the amount of elk calving habitat available within the KEA.

WL-45: Recreation Management in Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area:

• Public use will be encouraged on travel routes which will minimize conflicts with elk.

The Deschutes River Trail will be re-located within 100ft of the current location on the dike, which is within the same use corridor that the Elk have become habituated (see Figure 4a). The interpretive loop trail is located within the small northeastern lobe of the meadow and will focus use that already occurs in that area.

• Public use will not be restricted within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River during the calving season (May 1 to July 31).

The project will not restrict public use in the project area.

• Facilities will not be developed nor activities promoted which would encourage public use during the winter.

Access to the project area is intermittent during the winter months due to variable snowpack accumulations. There is currently use in the winter months by mountain bikers, hikers, and boaters when snowpacks do not accumulate. The project will not promote the use of the area during the winter months and it is difficult to predict the changes in winter use on these trails as a result of facility development. The amount of increase in the winter months would likely be very small, but is anticipated to occur annually throughout the lifetime of the project site.

Effects of public use on Elk as a result of this project are expected to be minimal. The Dillon Falls area is designated as day use and will not be changed as a result of this project. Mountain bike use is generally by users who do not park at the Dillon Falls Trailhead to access the trail and move through the area during the daytime when elk are generally not in the eastern portion of the meadow. Early morning and late evening users would be encouraged to walk their bicycles across the boardwalks through public education of their potential disturbance impacts to grazing elk.

Existing seasonal dog leash requirements currently help minimize potential impacts to Elk in this area, providing additional safety for all users and addressing key activities that have been shown to decrease or impede foraging of an area. Additional signage as a result of this project would help reduce negative impacts to elk in this Key Elk Area.

WL-47: “Hiding areas must be present over at least 30% of National Forest lands in each KEA.” Hiding cover is defined as an area of at least 6 acres in size capable of hiding 90% of an adult animal from human view at a distance of 200 ft (Thomas et al. 1979).

The forested perimeter of the project area currently provides hiding cover for elk. Existing hiding cover is present in 31-32% of the KEA, although implementation of the 2006 East Tumbull Hazardous Fuels Reduction EA and the 2007 Sunriver Healthy Hazardous Fuels EA will reduce hiding areas to the minimum LRMP standard of 30% in the KEHA. Meadow and streambank restoration would improve hiding cover in the project area in the short and long term, and thereby incrementally increase hiding cover percentages in the KEA.

WL-50: “Thermal cover must be present over at least 20% of National Forest land in each KEA.” The Deschutes LRMP defines thermal cover for elk as an area of at least 10 acres with an average height of at least 40 feet and a canopy closure of 40%.

Existing thermal cover in the KEA is approximately 40%. Due to the small size (<1/4 acre) of the project area that would remove trees for a new toilet and ADA parking, the project will not measurably reduce thermal cover in the Ryan Ranch KEA. The project is not anticipated to affect thermal cover for elk.

Inland Native Fish Strategy: Applicable Standards and Guidelines for both Watershed and Habitat Restoration and Fisheries and Wildlife Restoration include WR-1, FW-1 & FW-2 (INFISH, 1995). See Fisheries section for a discussion of the project compliance with these Standards and Guidelines.

Existing Condition

In general, the Ryan Ranch meadow provides habitat for a wide range of avian and mammalian species. Wet meadow habitat types are relatively rare on the Deschutes National Forest and a cursory analysis of meadows in the surrounding areas revealed only a few smaller meadow habitats, mostly upstream of Ryan Ranch. The meadow currently functions as a wet meadow habitat that provides habitat for seasonal shorebirds, burrowing pocket gophers, a vole/shrew population, grazing ungulates and some songbirds. There is currently minimal willow or other shrub cover within the project area.

Oregon spotted frog: The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is currently proposed for listing by USFWS. Oregon spotted frogs (OSF) are marsh specialists tied to permanent water in marsh type habitats with lots of floating vegetation and good hiding areas. Egg-laying can occur between mid- February and as late as early June in higher elevations, depending on temperature. Egg masses are typically deposited communally, attached to vegetation in shallow water (Hayes et al. 1997). Often found in the flooded upland adjacent to permanent water, the diet of spotted frogs consist mainly of insects including moths, water striders, hoverflies, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, and caddisflies. There are currently no Oregon spotted frog populations within the Ryan Ranch basin. However, Ryan Ranch did historically support a population of spotted frogs. Eleven specimens, housed at Oregon State University, were taken from Ryan Ranch in 1949, but a re-survey in 1996 found no frogs (Hayes, 1997). There is active breeding and rearing by Oregon spotted frogs less than 1 mile upstream of the project area at Slough Camp. Although there are no dams between the two areas, there is a lack of complex woody debris along the riverbank to provide refugia and the river contains predators (fish species) that may prey upon young frogs. An existing berm along the Ryan Ranch riverbank prevents aquatic movement from the river directly into the historic slough floodplain basin.

Ryan Ranch is within Subunit 8A of proposed Critical Habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. This subunit includes approximately 2,366 acres of designated habitat along the Deschutes River and associated wetlands downstream of Wickiup Dam to Bend, Oregon. Ryan Ranch contains approximately 65 acres of designated habitat with Primary Constituent Element (PCE) #1 characteristics such as high solar exposure, shallow water areas, gradual topographic gradient, and herbaceous wetland vegetation. However, these characteristics are all compromised under the current hydrologic conditions and the duration of inundation does not provide the timing or depth of ponded water for breeding and rearing habitat (B-R), as well as nonbreeding or overwintering habitat.

Although Ryan Ranch meadow contains compromised PCEs for critical habitat, it does not contain many of the threats to the physical and biological features. Generally speaking, it does have attributes that would allow the restoration of physical and biological features necessary for critical habitat. No bull frog populations are known in the immediate area surrounding Ryan Ranch meadow, including Slough Camp. Livestock grazing has been removed from the area since 1988.

Ungulates: Although the proposed project area comprises less than 1% of the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA) within which it is located, Ryan Ranch Meadow and peripheral habitats are heavily used by elk and mule deer. The area is particularly important as winter range due to its low elevation. The elk herd, part of the Upper Deschutes Management Unit, has been tracked with radio collars and was found to winter in either the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA) on federal and private lands or to utilize winter range to the west in the Bend watershed (Steve George, ODFW). The elk herd that utilizes the Ryan Ranch KEHA has been showing a slow upward trend in recent years (Glen Ardt and Steve George, ODFW).

Elk use the area for hiding and thermal cover and foraging largely in the winter months, although they have been observed in the area well into June. Elk primarily utilize habitats on the southwest side of the meadow for cover and as a bedding area. Tracks, scat and browse indicate that the entire meadow is utilized by elk between late evening and dawn when they are present in the area. The dense lodgepole and interspersed willow and aspen stands to the west of the project area may also be an important calving area. Elk generally calve in late spring, between May 1 and July 31st. Elk in the area have likely acclimated to the existing condition around the key elk area, most prominently trail use along river and security provided by closure of road 41-100 just west and south of the Dillon Falls day use area.

TES, R6 Sensitive Species and MIS: Tables 5, 6 and 7 summarize the existing status and habitat of TES, R6 Sensitive and MIS species, respectively, that were considered in this analysis.

Table 5. Status and Habitat summary of Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species Considered in Analysis.

Species Status* Habitat Presence No habitat within or adjacent to the Northern Old growth mixed conifer Federal Threatened, MIS, S3 proposed project area. Outside of the Spotted Owl forests range of the species. Northern Spotted Owl None designated within or adjacent to Federal designation Critical the project area. Habitat Large areas with low Gray Wolf Federal Endangered human densities/few roads Potential habitat within project area and big game

California Federal Proposed, Regional Mixed conifer habitat, No habitat within or adjacent to the wolverine Forester Sensitive, S1 high elevation proposed project area

Closest known site is < 1 river mile from Oregon Spotted Stream, marsh, ponded Federal Proposed, S2 project area. Potential to create habitat Frog water with project proposal

Species Status* Habitat Presence Oregon Spotted Project area is proposed critical habitat Frog Critical Federally proposed under the Federal Register Rule (August Habitat - 29, 2013) proposed

*Federally listed species come from the Region 6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species list for the Deschutes National Forest (January 2011). Oregon Sensitive Species determined from the Natureserve database for Oregon (2008): S1, critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable.

Table 6. Status and Habitat summary of R6 Sensitive Species Considered in Analysis.

Species Status* Habitat Presence Birds Closest nest site is 5 miles away. Northern Bald Regional Forester Sensitive, Lakeside or riverside with Potential foraging and roosting Eagle MIS, S4B, S4N, BCC large trees habitat exists within project area. American Regional Forester Sensitive, Riparian, cliffs No habitat within project area. peregrine falcon BCC, S2B Greater sage Regional Forester Sensitive, No habitat within or adjacent to the Sagebrush flats grouse BCC, S3 proposed project area. Open ponderosa pine Regional Forester Sensitive, Lewis’ forests, large diameter Potential habitat exists within MIS, BCC, Landbird focal woodpecker dead or dying trees, project area. species, S2, S3B burned forests Regional Forester Sensitive, White-headed Mature ponderosa pine Potential habitat exists within MIS, BCC, Landbird focal woodpecker forests; weak excavator project area. species, S2, S3B Harlequin Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Rapid streams, large trees Duck MIS, S2B, S3N project area. Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Bufflehead Lakes, snags MIS, S2B, S5N project area. Regional Forester Sensitive, Lakes, emergent Potential habitat exists within Horned grebe MIS, S2B, S5N vegetation project area. Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Yellow rail Marshes BCC, S1B project area. Tricolored Regional Forester Sensitive, No habitat within or adjacent to the Lakeside, bullrush blackbird BCC, S2B proposed project area. Northern Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Dense riparian willows Waterthrush S2B project area. Tule White- Seasonal migrant (spring and Potential habitat across river Regional Forester Sensitive fronted Goose fall), marshes and wetlands from project area Mammals Proposed Federal Candidate, Mixed conifer forest, No habitat within or adjacent to the Pacific fisher Regional Forester Sensitive, S2 complex forest structure proposed project area No habitat within or adjacent to the Pygmy rabbit Regional Forester Sensitive, S2 Sagebrush flats proposed project area. Townsend’s big- Regional Forester Sensitive, No habitat within or adjacent to the Caves and old dwellings eared bat MIS, S2 proposed project area. Potential habitat across river Spotted bat Regional Forester Sensitive Caves and rock crevices from project area Pallid bat Regional Forester Sensitive Arid desert and grasslands

Species Status* Habitat Presence with rock crevices, caves, Potential habitat across river old mines, trees, old from project area buildings Caves, mines, rock Potential habitat across river Fringed myotis Regional Forester Sensitive crevices, in desert, from project area grasslands and woodlands Invertebrates Crater Lake Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Wet vegetation zone Tightcoil S1 project area. Evening Regional Forester Sensitive, Perennially wet meadows Potential habitat near the project fieldslug S1 in forested habitats area No habitat within the proposed Silver-Bordered Regional Forester Sensitive, Wet meadows, bogs, and project area. Some potential Fritillary S2 marshes habitat across river from project area. Western Regional Forester Sensitive, Potential habitat exists within Meadows Bumblebee S2 project area Johnson’s Coniferous forests, No habitat within or adjacent to the Regional Forester Sensitive, S2 Hairstreak especially old growth proposed project area. *Regional Forester Sensitive species come from the Region 6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species list for the Deschutes National Forest (January 2008); Oregon Sensitive Species determined from the Natureserve database for Oregon: S1, critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure, B = breeding, N = non-breeding

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS INCLUDING THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE)

The Wildlife biological evaluation (BE) describes and displays the effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) fauna species associated with the Ryan Ranch Project. The complete BE is located in the project files at the Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest and is incorporated by reference.

No consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is necessary since the project will not affect TES species. As a result, species recovery plans and management plans are not applicable to this project. Conferencing with the USFWS for the potential to affect the Oregon spotted frog, proposed for federally threatened status, and effects to its proposed critical habitat has been completed.

Summary: No adverse effects to Threatened and Endangered or Proposed Threatened wildlife species are expected with the exception of the Oregon spotted frog. Potential effects may include beneficial effects as well as adverse effects. Designated or proposed critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog is present within the project area. A separate Biological Assessment was prepared for this species for the preferred alternative (Alternative 4). It was determined that implementation of the preferred alternative may impact sensitive wildlife species including the northern waterthrush, yellow rail, Crater Lake tightcoil, evening fieldslug, western bumblebee, and silver-bordered fritillary, but is not likely to contribute to a trend towards Federal listing.

Table 7. Summary of effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Considered Under the Biological Evaluation and Potential Habitat Present

Alt. 2 Alt. 4 (Preferred Alternative) Alt. 1 (No Species (Proposed Alt. 3 Action) Action) Option A Option B Option C Northern Spotted No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Owl Northern Spotted Owl Critical No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Habitat Gray Wolf No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Wolverine No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Oregon Spotted MALAA MANLAA – MANLAA Frog MANLAA – + take MALAA short term short term, short term short + take, No Effect Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Effect term, least BE Effect – long Effect – long term lesser BE long term term long term long term Oregon Spotted MANLAA – MANLAA – MANLAA MALLA MALAA Frog Critical short term short term short term, short short Habitat No Effect Beneficial Beneficial Effect Beneficial term, term, Effect – long- – long-term Effect lesser BE least BE term long-term long term long term Northern Bald No No No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Eagle Impact Impact Lewis’ No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Woodpecker White-headed No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Woodpecker Horned Grebe No No No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact Impact Bufflehead No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No No Impact Impact Harlequin Duck No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No No Impact Impact Northern No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial MIIH MIIH Waterthrush Impact Impact Impact Yellow Rail No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No No Spotted Bat Impact Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No No Pallid Bat Impact Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No No Fringed Myotis Impact Impact Crater Lake No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial MIIH Tightcoil Impact Impact Impact Impact Evening Fieldslug No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial MIIH MIIH Impact Impact Impact Western No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Bumblebee Silver-bordered No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial MIIH MIIH Fritillary Impact Impact Impact

Species Alt. 1 (No Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 (Preferred Alternative) Tule White- NoAi Impact ) No(P Impact d No Impact No Impact No No fronted Goose Impact Impact MANLAA = May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect; MALAA = May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing

Effects Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Oregon spotted frog (OSF): Federal Proposed for Threatened Status & Region 6 Sensitive, S2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effect to OSF populations along the Deschutes River. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore habitat for the species, ultimately increasing the population.

Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effect to proposed critical habitat. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore habitat for the species, ultimately increasing available habitat for the species.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A

Installation of the inlet/outlet culverts and the subsequent flooding of the Ryan Ranch meadow would create breeding and rearing habitat for potential occupation by spotted frogs. Because of the proximity of occupied habitat upstream, the project area is suited for occupancy during this period, although the inlet/outlet culverts will be screened and will not provide unimpeded aquatic entry from the river into the basin. Although frogs may not occupy the meadow within the first year of inundation, the possibility of occupation increases with time. The longer the meadow stays inundated the more likely frogs will inhabit the meadow.

The inlet/outlets connections created during the Pilot phase of Alternative 4 would remain open, by removal of the culverts and creating channels, allowing for inundation of the entire meadow when river water levels are high under Option A. This, in conjunction with the excavation of small pool/ponds, will create and maintain approximately 65 acres of frog habitat within the project area. It is likely that frogs would occupy habitat because of the close proximity of current populations and the creation of an unimpeded aquatic movement corridor into the Ryan Ranch slough basin. There are also no known nonnative predators (i.e. bullfrogs) in the area providing for an expansion of the native frog population in the area. However, maintenance of the open channels may allow predatory fish through them which may result in predation on frog egg masses, tadpoles, and adults.

Pond/pool creation would provide more opportunities for overwintering and rearing habitat for spotted frogs by providing areas of greater depth (approximately 5 feet) within the slough basin.

Determination: The proposed activities under Alternatives 2, 3 and Option A under Alternative 4 may affect and would not likely adversely affect spotted frogs in the short- term due to the ability of fish to enter through the open channels. In the long-term, however, the activities would have beneficial effects to Oregon spotted frog populations by creating and enhancing breeding, rearing, overwintering, and refugia habitat that will result in increases in the population

OSF Critical Habitat

Inundation of the meadow during this pilot phase creates, enhances, and restores habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. Specifically the Pilot phase increases the amount of time the meadow is inundated during the spring and summer months. The natural topography of the meadow and proposed inundation levels allow for varied depths of water that will provide breeding and rearing habitat. However, the Pilot Phase does not provide unimpeded hydrological connection between habitat in Ryan Ranch meadow and Slough Camp because the culverts will be screened.

The proposed action under these alternatives will not change the solar exposure currently within the meadow. The created shallow water area will have high solar exposure for breeding and rearing habitat. The actions will enhance the breeding and rearing habitat by complimenting the existing solar exposure with created shallow water areas. Refugia habitat would not be enhanced as a result of these alternatives.

These alternatives would create and enhance primary constituent elements (PCEs) of spotted frog critical habitat in the long-term. Specifically, the proposed activities would do the following: • enhance the seasonal inundation of the meadow and create breeding and rearing habitat - approximately 65 acres • create overwintering habitat by creating small pools and ponds approximately 0.01 acres total • enhance refugia habitat by creating more complex woody habitat along the streambank • provide a barrier free movement corridor between existing habitat at Slough Camp and the inundated the meadow at Ryan Ranch by creating open water channels that connect the river with the slough basin. • decrease the threat of invasive plants on habitat by flooding reed canarygrass populations in the meadow and minimizing the establishment of new populations.

Determination: The proposed activities may affect and but will not likely adversely affect critical habitat in the short-term. As the activities are implemented, the heavy equipment required will impact existing habitat. However, in the long-term, the proposed activities will beneficially affect critical habitat by restoring, creating, and enhancing a number of PCEs.

Alternative 4: Option B

The proposed actions under Option B would have similar effects to the Oregon spotted frog as Option A in regards to short-term adverse effects from opening the channels to possible fish predation. In contrast, Option B has fewer beneficial effects compared to Option A and Alternatives 2 and 3 because not as much habitat will be restored in the long term.

Approximately 7 acres of habitat created during the pilot phase of Alternative 4 would be removed under this option by pulling the culvert that allowed the upper northeast portion of the meadow to be temporarily flooded. Although this action would occur outside of the breeding season, the area would dry out and potentially strand any frogs within it. Option B could result in the take of individuals within the population.

Determination: The proposed activities under Option B may affect and would likely adversely affect spotted frogs due to the ability of fish to enter through the open channels. By pulling the culvert and closing the channel that would flood the most northeast portion of the meadow, it would revert the area back to the existing condition and adversely affect frogs that may occupy the habitat under the pilot phase. Although the likelihood of frogs occupying this area during the Pilot phase under Alternative 4 is low, these actions may result in the “take” of these frogs.

In the long-term, however, the activities would have beneficial effects to Oregon spotted frog populations by creating and enhancing breeding, rearing, overwintering, and refugia habitat that will result in increases in the population.

OSF Critical Habitat

Under Option B the inlet/outlet constructed furthest downstream would be closed and an earthen berm constructed that would prevent any inundation of the northeast portion of the meadow. This would decrease the amount of frog habitat created by approximately 7 acres. The habitat created and PCEs restored or enhanced under the pilot phase will be removed in the northeast portion of the meadow when the culvert is pulled and the channel filled. This would be an adverse effect to critical habitat.

Other than this, Option B would have similar effects as those discussed under Alternative 4 Option A. There are beneficial effects to PCEs in the other parts of the meadow where the channels are maintained. Approximately 58 acres of critical habitat would be beneficially affected by these actions.

Determination: The proposed activities under Option B may affect and will likely adversely affect critical habitat. Approximately 7 acres of habitat removed under this option.

Alternative 4: Option C

This Option may have adverse effects to spotted frogs through the removal of approximately 65 acres of habitat created or enhanced in the Ryan Ranch slough basin during the Pilot

Phase of Alternative 4. The likelihood of stranding spotted frogs is greatest under this Option.

Option C would return the entire meadow back to its existing condition when the culverts are pulled and channels filled. As a result there is the highest amount of potential take associated with this Option since it removes the largest amount of critical habitat compared to the other options. Although the likelihood of occupation during the Pilot phase is relatively low due to screened culverts, the large amount of habitat created has the potential to widely disperse individuals that did occupy the site and make them susceptible to being stranded when the water receded and aquatic passage to the river was cutoff.

Determination: Implementing Option C may affect and will likely adversely affect Oregon spotted frogs. There will likely be take of individuals that have come to occupy the habitat during the pilot phase and then become stranded when the channels are filled and the meadow is no longer flooded.

OSF Critical Habitat Option C would largely remove the PCEs of critical habitat that were restored, created or enhanced during the pilot phase and re-establish the hydrologic modifications and threat of invasive reed canarygrass that are a known to negatively impact critical habitat by drying out the meadow. Thus, implementing Option C may affect and will likely adversely affect approximately 65 acres of Critical Habitat.

Determination: Implementing Option C may affect and would likely adversely affect Critical Habitat because it would remove approximately 65 acres of habitat restored, enhanced and created during the Pilot Phase.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Streambank restoration would enhance and create refugia habitat for spotted frogs by the creation of log structures which enhance riverbank habitat complexity. This would allow the adverse effect of the open channels to become a short-term adverse effect because spotted frogs would have more habitat to hide from potential predators in the long -term.

In general, recreation developments and improvements would have no effect to spotted frogs. Improvements to the parking lot would have no effect to frogs. Creation of a boardwalk and improvements to the trail would help define the area for recreationists and protect frog habitat from trampling. The hardened dog fetch/swim area created would remove <0.1 acre of streambank habitat.

OSF Critical Habitat

There would be short-term effects to existing refugia habitat along the streambank as the restoration activities take place and heavy equipment works in the area during the fall when spotted frogs may be dispersing from the rearing areas.

The ADA trail, recreation improvements, and dog swim/fetch area take place outside of spotted frog critical habitat and therefore would have no effect.

There are portions of the boardwalk and trail reconstruction that would take place within critical habitat. The construction of boardwalk would have a minimal and localized short term effect to critical habitat where trampling occurred to install posts and boardwalk spans. The boardwalk would protect the frog habitat underneath by providing an obvious walkway with very limited possibility of walking off-trail. The relocation of the trail berm would cover existing critical habitat with soil but create an equal amount of habitat where the existing berm was removed. The trail reconstruction would also provide a safe and drier walkway for pedestrians and cyclists through the meadow thereby encouraging recreationists to avoid frog habitat.

Cumulative Effects Because there are no other meadow or riverbank project ingoing or reasonably foreseeable in the Oregon Spotted frog Subunit (below Wickiup Dam), the actions proposed under any of the Alternatives would not be additive to another project. No cumulative impacts to Oregon spotted frogs or proposed critical habitat is anticipated.

Table 8. Determination Summary for the Oregon spotted frog.

Alternative Frog Populations Critical Habitat No Action No Effect No Effect Alternatives 2, 3 and Option A May Affect Not Likely to May Affect Not Likely to under Alternative 4 Adversely Affect – short term Adversely Affect – short term Long term Long term Beneficial Effect Beneficial Effect Option B under Alternative 4 May Affect Likely to Adversely May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Option C under Alternative 4 May Affect Likely to Adversely May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Actions Common to all Action May Affect Not Likely to May Affect Not Likely to Alternatives: streambank Adversely Affect Adversely Affect restoration and recreation improvements

Both Option B and Option C would have a frog salvage plan in place prior to implementation.

Communication with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (per T&E species)

The proposed actions may affect Oregon spotted frogs and proposed critical habitat. Conferencing with the USFWS on Alternative 4 and all of its Options was completed during

the analysis period. The USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion (BO) to the USFS that authorizes take of Oregon spotted frogs if either Option B or C is implemented.

Northern Bald Eagle, Management Indicator Species, S4B, S4N, BCC

On August 8, 2007 the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife threatened and endangered list and added to the Region 6 Sensitive Species List (USDI, 2007).

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Bald eagle nests are usually located in multi-storied stands with old growth components and are near bodies of water, which support an adequate food supply (USDI, USFWS 1986). Food sources consist of mammalian carrion, fish, ground squirrels and birds. Nests are generally located in the largest, live trees in the area with the tree canopy covering nests to varying degrees. The species of tree doesn’t seem to be as important as tree size, branch form and location. Nest trees typically provide an unobstructed view of a body of water and are often located in prominent places on the topography. Most of the large lakes, reservoirs, and rivers on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District provide suitable habitat for bald eagles.

There are currently around 20 bald eagle nesting territories on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. The closest bald eagle nesting site to the project area is the Harper Bridge site. The Harper Bridge nest site is located over 5 miles upstream of the project area. It is assumed that bald eagles utilize the river corridor for foraging, but no eagles are known to nest or use winter roosts within the project area itself. At the present time, bald eagle use in the project area is considered incidental foraging habitat.

Although the bald eagle is no longer a threatened species, PDC’s can still be used to assess impacts and mitigate actions within eagle habitats. A list of the PDC’s is located in Appendix C.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Since there are no known nesting pairs and the project area is determined to be incidental foraging habitat, the Ryan Ranch Restoration Project would have “No Impact” to bald eagles under all alternatives. Project implementation would likely occur in the fall, well outside of nest activity restriction period (Jan. 1 – Aug. 31), should an eagle occupy the area. PDC’s located in Appendix 3 are either met or not applicable for the project. In addition, all standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met or are not applicable, including: WL-1.

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified in the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Plan (1996) as related to species addressed by this Biological Evaluation would not be negatively affected by the proposed actions. Segment 4C where the project is proposed, has no known nesting bald eagles, which were identified as contributing to Outstanding Remarkable Values for wildlife only in Segment 2.

This project is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to bald eagles from this project are not expected. The project would have a beneficial impact to bald eagles by improving riparian and wetland habitat and potentially increasing prey species, e.g., fish and waterfowl.

Mitigation Measures

Conduct bald eagle surveys prior to any work that would be done during the nesting season to determine if any nests are within ¼ mile of the project area. If present, determine if a seasonal restriction is appropriate. The restriction applies from January 1 to August 31.

Lewis’ Woodpecker Management Indicator Species, BCC, Landbird focal species, S2, S3B

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker, a migrant in this part of its range, is old-forest, single- storied ponderosa pine. Altman and Holmes (2000) identified the Lewis’ woodpecker as a focal species for riparian woodlands with large cottonwood snags for the Columbia Plateau Landbird Strategy. This habitat is extremely rare to absent on the Deschutes National Forest. In addition, this species was also identified as a focal species for ponderosa pine with patches of burned old forests for the East Cascades Landbird Strategy (Altman 2000) as it is highly associated with post-fire environments.

Threats to the Lewis’ woodpecker include the loss of large snags, fire suppression, intensive grazing, timber harvest, salvage logging of burned ponderosa pine forests, loss of cottonwood trees, human development in breeding and wintering habitat, and human disturbance at nest sites (Tobalske 1997, Marshall et al. 2003, Abele et al. 2004, NatureServe 2013). In addition, minor threats may include use of pesticides or contaminants in orchards and agricultural settings and competition for nest cavities with European starlings (Tobalske 1997, Marshall et al. 2003, Abele et al. 2004, NatureServe 2013).

The loss of breeding and wintering habitats in the form of burned pine forests, park-like ponderosa pine forests, riparian cottonwood stands and oak woodlands is thought to be the primary threat to the long-term persistence of populations (Abele et al 2004). Primary causes of habitat degradation are likely timber harvest, fire suppression, cattle grazing, and human development (Abele et al. 2004). These activities may result in the loss of nest and storage substrates, a reduction in the understory shrub community, a decrease in prey availability or an increase in forest stand density (making them unsuitable for breeding habitat) (Wisdom et al. 2000).

There are no records of Lewis woodpeckers nesting at Ryan Ranch although there are large, well-decayed ponderosa pines surrounding the meadow, especially the northern portion. The nearest known nesting is more than 4 miles away.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to Lewis’ woodpecker populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A

Inundation of the meadow may encourage the development of aspen and cottonwood to the indirect benefit to Lewis’ woodpecker populations through the increase in potential nesting habitat.

Alternative 4 –

Option B Similar to Alternatives 2, 3 and Option A, inundation of the meadow may encourage the development of aspen and cottonwood to the indirect benefit to Lewis’ woodpecker populations through the increase in potential nesting habitat. This alternative has a slightly less indirect benefit from this because there would be 7 fewer acres of wet meadow maintained and therefore fewer acres of potential habitat created.

Option C Option C would likely have no impact on Lewis’ woodpeckers. This Option would plug the channels and not maintain a wet meadow. The action would occur within 2 years of the initial pilot phase flooding proposed as an initial action under Alternative 4. Two years is not enough time for aspen and cottonwoods to become established and grow to a size whereby Lewis’ woodpeckers could use them for nesting.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Although snags are not proposed to be removed, with the recreational improvements some may need to be fallen as hazards. This will likely be a rare circumstance because of the general lack of nesting habitat (i.e. snags) where the developments would occur. The situation can be mitigated by avoidance or topping the potential nest snag. Cumulative impacts would be minimal because the indirect effects would be minimal.

With mitigation to avoid the removal of snags due to recreational developments/improvements, the proposed actions may impact individuals but would unlikely contribute towards a trend in further listing.

Mitigation Measures

Avoid the falling of large ponderosa pine snags during the recreational phase of the proposal. If a snag poses a hazard, consider topping it to still provide a substrate for nesting. If a Lewis’ woodpecker is found to be nesting prior to the start of recreational activities, determine if avoidance of the nest tree and/or a seasonal restriction is appropriate. The restriction applies from April through August.

White-headed Woodpecker Management Indicator Species, BCC, Landbird focal species, S2, S3B

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

White-headed woodpeckers occur primarily in open forest with large ponderosa pine (dead and alive), low shrub levels and large snags (Marshall et al. 2003). Altman (2000) identified the white-headed woodpecker as a focal species for ponderosa pine forests, specifically large

patches of old forest with large snags. This species is often associated with old-growth ponderosa pine habitats (Dixon 1995). Dixon (1995) found white-headed woodpecker densities increased with increasing old-growth ponderosa pine trees and showed a positive association with large ponderosa pine.

Foraging habitat is usually found in association with nesting habitat. Kozma (2011) surmised because white-headed woodpeckers are primarily bark gleaners and feed on ponderosa pine seeds throughout the winter, large diameter and old-growth ponderosa pine may be more important to white-headed woodpeckers because these trees have a greater bark foraging area, higher insect abundance, and greater and more frequent cone production than smaller trees.

Habitat degradation is the primary threat to this species (Garrett et al. 1996, Frenzel 2000, and Nature Serve 2011). Loss of large diameter, old ponderosa pine from logging, planting of even-aged stands, fire suppression (which favors replacement of pines by firs), snag removal and forest fragmentation have contributed to local declines (Garrett et al. 1996, Nature Serve 2011).

Incidental disturbance at nest and roost sites occurs around recreation sites but this species is tolerant of human activity in the nest vicinity as long as activity does not involve the nest tree (Garrett et al. 1996). Birds become extremely agitated if the nest itself is disturbed and activity is not prolonged (Garrett et al. 1996).

There are no known white-headed woodpecker nests or sightings in the Ryan Ranch area, although habitat does exist around the meadow.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to white-headed woodpecker populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A Inundating the meadow and keeping it as a wet meadow, as proposed under these particular alternatives would have no impact to white-headed woodpeckers. Meadow habitat, dry or wet, is not white-headed woodpecker habitat.

Alternative 4 –

Option B Inundating the meadow and keeping it as a wet meadow, as proposed under this particular alternative, although less than the previous alternatives would have no impact to white- headed woodpeckers. Meadow habitat, dry or wet, is not white-headed woodpecker habitat.

Option C

This alternative initially floods the meadow, but does not maintain it; closing the channels and allowing it to revert to a dry meadow. These actions will not impact white-headed woodpeckers because these actions do not occur within white-headed woodpecker habitat.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives No direct impacts are anticipated to this species because no known nests are found in the area. Some nesting habitat may be altered when the recreational developments are built and trees are removed (similar to the discussion for Lewis’ Woodpecker). The amount of habitat (<2 acres) would be small. Indirectly, the proposed actions may impact individuals but they would not likely contribute towards a trend to further listing. Mitigation measures to limit the number of trees removed for the recreational developments/improvements will minimize impacts to this species. Because direct and indirect impacts are minimal or non- existent, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures

Avoid the falling of large ponderosa pine snags during the recreational phase of the proposal. If a snag poses a hazard, consider topping it to still provide a substrate for nesting. If a white-headed woodpecker is found to be nesting prior to the start of recreational activities, determine if avoidance of the nest tree and/or a seasonal restriction is appropriate. The restriction applies from April through August.

Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus), Management Indicator Species, S2B, S5N

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Horned grebes utilize marshes, ponds, lakes, and occasionally occur along sluggish streams for breeding. They nest among tall vegetation in shallow water on small and large lakes and ponds (approximately ¼ acre or larger), in calm waters of marshes, along rivers and streams. Outside the breeding season, horned grebes are found on bays, estuaries and seacoasts, and in migration commonly in inland freshwater habitats, especially lakes and rivers (NatureServe 2008). In Central Oregon, Horned grebes are uncommon spring and fall migrants at larger lakes and reservoirs throughout the region. Regularly found at Wickiup and Tumalo reservoirs and Hatfield Lake. Spring passage occurs from early March through mid-May, with fall birds seen from mid-August through mid-December (DNF 2006). Horned grebes are invertivores and piscivores, with a diet that mainly consists of small fishes, crustaceans and aquatic insects; also amphibians and leeches; aquatic insects predominate in summer, crustaceans and fishes in winter.

There are no known sightings of horned grebes in the project area. However, there is potential habitat along sections of the Deschutes River in and adjacent to the project area. Surveys were not specifically, conducted for this species, but numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

No negative impacts to the horned grebe are expected to occur under all alternatives; horned grebes are not currently known to nest in the project area. Furthermore, project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project

area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because streambank restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week.

The proposed action is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to horned grebes from this project are not expected. The Proposed Action could have a “Beneficial Impact” on horned grebes in the long term by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and potentially increasing prey populations (fish, amphibians, and aquatic insects), thereby increasing the abundance of food resources.

Red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena)

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Red-necked grebes winter along seacoasts, bays, and estuaries. In migration, found on lakes, ponds, and rivers. Red-necked grebes nest mainly on shallow, freshwater lakes (>2 ha.) or shallow protected marsh areas and secluded bays of larger lakes, usually with at least some emergent vegetation and fish populations (Stout and Neuchterlein 1999 in DNF 2006). Nest is usually in reeds along the margins of shallow lakes; made of dead and rotting reeds and flags, water mosses, etc. raised slightly above the surface of the water, and eggs are generally wet and almost awash (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). Red-necked grebe’s feed on small fish where available, but also eats aquatic and land insects, crustaceans, mollusks, aquatic worms, tadpoles, salamander eggs and some vegetable matter. A visual predator, pursues fish and other swimming prey underwater and plucks items off bottom and off vegetation. Fish may be the principle food item in winter (Stout and Neuchterlein 1999 in DNF 2006). In Central Oregon, Red-necked grebes are a rare spring and fall transient at larger lakes and reservoirs in the region. Spring records from late February through mid-May, and fall sightings from early August through mid-December. Birds breed annually on Upper Klamath Lake, and bred successfully in 1997 at Lava Lake (DNF 2006). Many larger lakes could be used during migration (e.g., Wickiup Reservoir). There are no known records of red-necked grebes nesting in the project area. Surveys were not specifically conducted for this species, but numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects and Determination

No negative impacts to red-necked grebes are expected to occur under all alternatives. Red-necked grebes are not currently known to nest in the project area, nor would the project affect their nesting habitat. Furthermore, project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week.

The proposed action is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to red-necked grebes from this project are not expected. The Proposed Action could have a “Beneficial Impact” on red-necked grebes by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (fish, amphibians, aquatic insects and plant material).

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Management Indicator Species, S2B, S5N

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

100

Buffleheads utilize lakes, ponds, rivers, and seacoasts. The birds nest in natural cavities or abandoned northern flicker holes in mixed coniferous-deciduous woodlands near lakes and ponds. Females often nest in the same site in successive years (NatureServe 2008). This duck eats both animal and plant material. However, during the breeding season, aquatic insects and larvae are the most important item in their diet. Buffleheads winter on sheltered bays and estuaries as well as freshwater environments (NatureServe 2006). Bufflehead population numbers are generally low in Oregon and a shortage of natural cavities has brought attention to the breeding segment of the population (Csuti et al. 1997 p. 100). In Central Oregon, the bufflehead is a common permanent resident, breeding at mountain lakes and dispersing widely at lower elevations in winter. Numerous confirmed breeding records from Cascade lakes wherever suitable nest cavities exist, with regular breeding occurring at Hosmer Lake and Meadow Lakes Basin. It is often observed in migration and winter at Mirror Pond, as well as Hatfield Lake and smaller irrigation reservoirs (DNF 2006). Surveys were not specifically conducted for this species, but numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings. Potential habitat exists along the open slack water areas along the Deschutes River.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

No negative effects to the bufflehead duck are expected to occur under all alternatives. Bufflehead ducks are not currently known to nest in the project area, nor would the project affect their nesting habitat. Furthermore, project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week.

The proposed action is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to bufflehead ducks from this project are not expected. The Proposed Action could have a “Beneficial Impact” on the bufflehead duck by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (fish, amphibians, aquatic insects and plant material).

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), Management Indicator Species, S2B, S3N

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Harlequin ducks winter in rough coastal waters, especially along rocky shores or reefs; summering nonbreeders and immatures also occur in this habitat (Cassirer et al. 1993 in DNF 2006). Nesting occurs along fast-moving rivers and mountain streams on rocky islands or banks. Streams are braided to reticulate with many riffles and rapids (Cassirer et al. 1993 in DNF 2006). Harlequin ducks require relatively undisturbed, low gradient, meandering mountain streams with dense shrubby riparian areas (greater than 50% streamside shrub cover), and woody debris for nesting and brood rearing; also needs mid-stream boulders or log jams and overhanging vegetation for cover and loafing; indicator of high water quality (Spahr et al. 1991 in DNF 2006). They sometimes nest beside mountain lakes and lake outlets. Harlequin ducks nest in a hollow, usually under the cover of bushes within about 30 m of water; also in rock crevice among boulders, in rock cavity in cliff face, in a tree cavity (Cassirer et al. 1993 in DNF 2006). They tend to breed in the same area in successive years. Harlequin’s are invertivores, they feed on benthic aquatic invertebrates, crustaceans and mollusks, insects, and a few small fishes (NatureServe 2008). Harlequins are very rare in the region. They breed mostly in the West Cascades, but spontaneous individual records on the Upper Deschutes and Metolius rivers may indicate possible nesting in the future. Surveys were not specifically conducted for this species, but

101

numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings. Potential migration habitat exists in the project area along the Deschutes River.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

No negative effects to the harlequin duck are expected to occur under all alternatives. Harlequin ducks are not currently known to nest in the project area. Furthermore, project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week.

The proposed action is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to harlequin ducks from this project are not expected. The Proposed Action could have a “Beneficial Impact” on the harlequin duck by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (fish, amphibians, aquatic insects and plant material). This project could specifically benefit Harlequin’s by restoring the woody debris component of their habitat requirements.

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), BCC, S1B

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Yellow rails were confirmed in Oregon in 1926 (Marshall 1993). Between 1982 and 1992 observations by various birders and extensive inventories conducted by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (Stern et al. 1993 in DNF 2006) provided further information about yellow rails in Oregon. Further studies were conducted in southern and south central Oregon beginning in 1995 focusing on Wood River valley, Sycan Marsh, Klamath Marsh and Big Marsh to determine the number of calling male yellow rails and banding to help determine site fidelity (Popper 2005 in DNF 2006). From information gathered over the last 7-8 years, nesting habitat for the yellow rails in Oregon has been described as marshes or wet meadows which have an abundance of thin-leaved sedges, a layer of senescent vegetation to conceal nests, and an average water depth of 7 cm. (Popper 2001 in DNF 2006). Studies in southern Oregon have determined that egg hatching can occur from early June through early August with incubation beginning 2-3 weeks earlier and fledging occurs about a month after hatching (Popper pers. comm. 2005 in DNF 2006). Rails feed on a variety of food including: seeds, insects and aquatic invertebrates (Nature Serve 2006).

Surveys were not specifically conducted for this species, but numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings. It is not known whether rails utilize habitat in the project area. Potential habitat is available in the existing meadow but it would be very marginal. Ryan Ranch meadow is characterized primarily as a dry meadow (Kentucky bluegrass) plant association. A small section of the meadow (approximately 15 acres) contains sedges and reed canary grass suggesting that standing water or at least wet conditions prevail earlier in the season--see botany report in CE. In the unlikely event existing vegetation supports rails; potential habitat may also be limited by water levels. Existing water depth is preferable during the beginning of mating and nesting season but quickly recedes in the late spring. The existing meadow is typically dry (depending on annual fluctuations) by mid June.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Implementation of the project could negatively impact yellow rails under all alternatives. However, based on the discussion above, it is not known if the meadow is suitable habitat for the yellow rail. It

102

is difficult to the exact condition of the meadow post restoration but, the meadow may become something similar to Slough Camp. Slough Camp is a riverine wetland hydrologically connected to the river >1 mile north of Ryan Ranch. Slough camp contains some sedges and cattails that could provide habitat for yellow rails. However, inundating Ryan Ranch meadow may preclude rails from nesting because the project will alter the existing hydrological condition. Seasonal inundation of the meadow would begin around mid-April and be sustained through mid-October, potentially making the habitat unusable i.e., the water level would rise dramatically as birds were looking to or have already nested, essentially drowning potential nests.

The proposed action may impact individuals but is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; there are no other projects in the area that would alter wetland habitat. Therefore, cumulative impacts to yellow rails from this project are not expected.

Northern Waterthrush

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The northern waterthrush is one of Oregon’s rarest and most local breeders. An isolated population has summered and presumably bred in the south central Cascades since 1977. This population extends from the Little Deschutes River north of Gilchrist south to the vicinity of Highway 58 west along Crescent Creek and to Salt Creek in Lane County (Marshall et al. 2003). In addition, one male was seen at Lost Lake along the crest in the late 1980s. No nest has ever been found. Along Crescent Creek, birds are found in dense willow 5-8’ tall with some alder interspersed, often in standing or slow moving water. Northern waterthrushes have been observed singing from willows, pines, and snags in the vicinity. Their diet is unknown. No population surveys have been done but several pairs have been detected for the past 30 years along Crescent Creek and the Little Deschutes River (Marshall et al. 2003).

Habitat for the northern waterthrush includes hardwoods, mesic shrubs and Class 1-4 riparian areas on the Deschutes NF. Suitable habitat specific to the northern waterthrush has not been mapped at this time as assessments are generally conducted at a project level. However, there is potential, marginal habitat along sections of the Deschutes River in and adjacent to the project area. Surveys were not specifically conducted for this species, but numerous field visits to the project area since 2003 have not revealed any sightings.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

No negative effects to the northern waterthrush are expected to occur under all alternatives. Northern waterthrush are not currently known to nest in the project area and the project would occur outside of the nesting season. The segment of streambank that would be restored is heavily degraded, e.g., few individual willows, vertical stream cut-banks and legacy rip-rap.

The proposed action is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to northern waterthrush from this project are not expected. The Proposed Action would have a “Beneficial Impact” on northern waterthrush by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (insects and aquatic insects).

Tule White-fronted Goose

103

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Tule white-fronted geese migrate through the area. They are known to nest in Alaska and then winter from southern Oregon (Summer Lake State Wildlife Refuge and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) to California (Tule Lake to Sacramento Valley) (Timm et al 1982). They are mostly found in open stopover areas similar to their tundra nesting grounds.

Ryan Ranch meadow is likely too small for a flock of migrating tule white-fronted geese to land in and over winter. They may stop in the meadow and in the river temporarily. The similar species, greater white-fronted geese, have been observed during migration on Wickiup Reservoir and on the Deschutes River within the city of Bend.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to tule white- fronted geese populations along the Deschutes River and on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A The proposed inundation of the meadow under each of these alternatives would likely have minimal benefit to this species. As stated earlier, the Ryan Ranch project area is likely too small of an area to provide stopover habitat for this species.

Alternative 4 –

Option B The proposed inundation of the meadow under each of this alternative would likely have minimal benefit to this species. As stated earlier, the Ryan Ranch project area is likely too small of an area to provide stopover habitat for this species.

Option C The proposed action unique to this alternative would have no impact to tule white-fronted geese. The meadow would not be flooded for a length of time that would likely attract migrating tule white-fronted geese. Thus the follow-up action of closing the channels and preventing flooding of the meadow would not impact geese.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives None of the alternatives are expected to impact potentially “visiting” geese. Currently geese may be discouraged from stopping over by the size of the area and amount of recreation use. The action alternatives would better define recreational areas in the whole area through designated recreation spots. This may provide some refuge or hiding areas for geese from human and potential domestic dog disturbance.

104

The proposed actions, under any of the alternatives, would have “No Impact” to these species.

Spotted Bat, Pallid Bat, Fringed Myotis

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

These three species are analyzed together because of their similarity in habitat use in relation to the project area. Each of these species uses rock crevices and cave habitat, with the fringed myotis also using woodlands. These types of habitat can be found across the river from the project area.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to bat populations along the Deschutes River. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore some foraging habitat for these species.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A There would be no direct impacts to these species or their habitats as a result of the proposed actions. An indirect impact may be a difference in prey species as the meadow is converted from a dry meadow to a wet one. Overall prey densities are not anticipated to be different, and dry habitat prey species would still be available over the lava flow east of the river and adjacent to the project area. Thus there would be no measurable change in prey availability as a result of the actions.

105

Alternative 4 –

Option B Similar to the actions specific to Alternatives 2, 3, and Option A of Alternative 4 there would be no direct impacts to these species or their habitats as a result of the proposed actions. An indirect impact may be a difference in prey species as the meadow is converted from a dry meadow to a wet one. Overall prey densities are not anticipated to be different, and dry habitat prey species would still be available over the lava flow east of the river and adjacent to the project area. Thus there would be no measurable change in prey availability as a result of the actions.

Option C Actions unique to this Option (i.e. brief flooding of meadow but then plugging the open channels) are not expected to impact these bat species. The change in existing condition is temporary and the meadow would likely revert back to its pre-flooding state. This is not expected to change bat foraging patterns in the area.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The sreambank restoration activities and recreation improvements are not expected to impact bat species. There would not be a measurable change to habitat as a result to these actions.

Crater Lake Tightcoil

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

One terrestrial mollusk, the Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), a former NWFP Survey and Manage species has been given Sensitive Species status on the Deschutes National Forest. This species is considered to be rare and identification of specimens is difficult because of its small size and cryptic habits. “The Crater Lake Tightcoil may be found in perennially wet situations in mature conifer forests, among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris within 10 m. of open water in wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas, generally in areas which remain under snow for long periods during the winter. Riparian habitats in the Eastern Oregon Cascades may be limited to the extent of permanent surface moisture, which is often less than 10 m. from open water” (Duncan et al. 2003).

Threats to the species include activities that compact soils, reduce litter and/or vegetative cover, or impact potential food sources (i.e. livestock grazing, heavy equipment use, ORV’s, and camping on occupied habitats). Fluctuations from removal of ground vegetation on ground temperature and humidity may be less extreme at higher elevations and on wetter sites, but no studies have been conducted to evaluate such a theory. These snails appear to occur on wetter sites than general forest conditions, so activities that would lower the water table or reduce soil moisture would degrade habitat (Burke et al. 1999).

106

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

There are no known occupied sites within the project area. The project area is thought to be outside the range of the Crater Lake Tightcoil. However, few surveys have been conducted in the area. Surveys were conducted in 2009 (district files) and no animals were detected. Surveys were cursory and animals may exist along the Deschutes River corridor. However, the altered hydrology of the river may preclude them from inhabiting the river corridor--see discussion on OSF above.

In the event mollusks occupy the project site, any animals would be less likely to be present in the disturbed areas targeted for the bank reshaping because these areas are too degraded to be potential habitat. Restoration of these perched, dry and actively eroding bank segments would restore any potential habitat and would be beneficial to mollusk species in the long term. The proposed action may impact individuals but is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species. This project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. The Tumbull Fish Habitat Restoration Project will impact approximately 500 feet of similarly degraded streambank. The cumulative impact of this action is negligible. Therefore, cumulative impacts to Crater Lake Tightcoils from this project are not expected

Evening Fieldslug S1

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

According to Duncan (2005), the evening fieldslug is associated with perennially wet meadows in forested habitats. Microsites include a variety of low vegetation, litter, and debris; rocks may also be used as refugia. Little detail is known about exact habitat requirements for the species due to the limited number of verified sites. However, this species appears to have high moisture requirements and is almost always found in or near herbaceous vegetation at the interface between soil and water, or under litter and other cover in wet situations where the soil and vegetation remain constantly saturated. Because of the apparent need for stable environments that remain wet throughout the year, suitable habitat may be considered to be limited to moist surface vegetation and cover objects within 30 m. (98 ft.) of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas. Typical landscape features that may provide constant moisture conditions include springs and seeps, as well as wetlands in depressions and around perennial ponds.

Based on the above description, little habitat for evening fieldslugs exist within the project area. The fluctuating water levels currently along the riverbank do not provide the stable, moist environment this species needs, and any water levels within the meadow are not perennially wet throughout the year (drying out in summer).

In 2013, a correspondence paper was published suggesting, with a preponderance of evidence, that the evening fieldslug is likely a variety of the more common meadow slug (Deroceras leave) and not a separate species unto itself (Roth et. al 2013)

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action)

107

Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to fieldslug populations on the Deschutes National Forest. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore some foraging habitat for the species.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A By restoring the meadow as a wet meadow, better defining recreation use through the designation of trails and other recreational uses, and repairing the riverbank, the action alternatives will generally benefit evening fieldslugs. Habitat for the species will be enhanced.

Alternative 4 –

Option B By restoring the meadow as a wet meadow, this alternative will generally benefit evening fieldslugs. Habitat for the species will be enhanced within most of the slough basin. However, 7 acres of habitat created under the Pilot Phase will be removed (the channel plugged and area allowed to dry) under this Option.

Option C Under Option C of the adaptive management alternative (Alternative 4) there is the possibility that the meadow will be inundated and then dried out again as the inlet/outlet channels are closed. This may initially create habitat for this species and then remove it if the inlet/outlet channels are closed.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Better defining recreation use through the designation of trails and other recreational uses, and repairing the riverbank, the action alternatives will generally benefit evening fieldslugs. Habitat for the species will be enhanced.

This unique effect of Options B and C under Alternative 4 may impact individuals but unlikely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing, whereas Option A under Alternative 4, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have beneficial impacts.

The proposed actions are not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to this species are not expected.

Western Bumblebee S2

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Bumblebees will visit a range of different plant species and are important generalist pollinators of a wide variety of flowering plants and crops (Goulsen 2003a; Heinrich 2004). Although bumblebees do not depend on a single type of flower, some plants rely solely on bumblebees for pollination. In addition, native bees, such as bumblebees are adapted to local

108

conditions (Goulsen 2003b). For example, bumblebees can forage in cold, rainy conditions. Certain wild pollinators are well adapted for specific plants and as a whole can pollinate a wide variety of crops. Reduced populations or even the loss of bumblebees would have serious ecological impacts upon our ecosystem due to their important role as pollinators.

There are several threats which face bumblebees and are leading to their decline. The following threats and conservation considerations are from a status review, co-authored by Robbin Thorp, Elaine Evans, and Scott Hoffman (Thorp et al. 2008): commercial rearing, habitat alteration, insecticide, invasive plant and insects, and global climate change. The only likely threat in the project area with any measurable impacts may be habitat alteration and invasive plants and insects.

Habitat alterations including those that could destroy, fragment, alter, degrade or reduce the food supply produced by flowers, as well as destruction of nest sites and hibernation sites for overwintering queens, such as abandoned rodent burrows and bird nests, adversely affect these bees. When exotic plants invade and dominate native grasslands, they may threaten bumblebees by competing with the native nectar and pollen plants relied upon by bumblebees. In order to combat these threats it is recommended that the invasion of exotic plants should be restricted as much as possible by reducing the rate of introduction of new species and by controlling populations of invasives.

Although there are no known records of western bumblebees in the project area, they have been observed in meadow habitat around Sparks Lake and Sunriver (each more than 12-15 miles away). Potential foraging plants likely exist within the area as well as occasional rodent burrows for overwintering sites.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to bumblebee populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A The project area already potentially serves as foraging and over-wintering habitat. The suitability of the habitat is likely lower than other meadows where the species has been found because of the extensive presence of reed canarygrass, an invasive plant, in Ryan Ranch meadow. The reed canarygrass has been treated but only recently and the effectiveness of the treatment and/or the response of native flowering plants are still unknown.

Inundation of the meadow may create better conditions for the establishment of some native wildflowers and foraging plants for bumblebees by limiting the reed canarygrass (it has been suggested that flooding the plant also kills the plant – see Botanists report). However, inundation may also flood burrows serving as overwintering sites.

Alternative 4 –

Option B

109

The project area already potentially serves as foraging and over-wintering habitat. The suitability of the habitat is likely lower than other meadows where the species has been found because of the extensive presence of reed canarygrass, an invasive plant, in Ryan Ranch meadow. The reed canarygrass has been treated but only recently and the effectiveness of the treatment and/or the response of native flowering plants are still unknown.

Inundation of the meadow may create better conditions for the establishment of some native wildflowers and foraging plants for bumblebees by limiting the reed canarygrass. However, inundation may also flood burrows serving as overwintering sites. This would not occur over the entire meadow, as one channel is plugged and the meadow allowed to dry (approximately 7 acres).

Option C The project area already potentially serves as foraging and over-wintering habitat. The suitability of the habitat is likely lower than other meadows where the species has been found because of the extensive presence of reed canarygrass, an invasive plant, in Ryan Ranch meadow. The reed canarygrass has been treated but only recently and the effectiveness of the treatment and/or the response of native flowering plants are still unknown.

This Option temporarily floods the meadow. The dry meadow conditions would return after the channels are plugged, potentially eliminating the threat of flooding any wintering burrows. This action may also allow for the re-establishment of reed canarygrass without active herbicide intervention.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Streambank restoration and the recreation improvements are not expected to have any effects to potential bumblebee habitat.

Because of the mix of beneficial impacts (e.g. reduce invasive plants) with some negative effects (e.g. flooding of potential burrows), the proposed actions under all alternatives may impact individuals or habitat but would unlikely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.

Silver-bordered Fritillary S2

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

110

Silver-bordered fritillaries can be found in bogs, open riparian areas, and in marshes containing a large amount of Salix and larval food plants (Warren 2005). Sunny wet habitats encourage adult flight.

Habitat succession and drying have put many populations under stress (Pyle 2002). Habitats known to contain these butterflies should be managed to maintain hydrology, and the continued existence of violets by monitoring willow succession (Scheuering 2006). Vegetation treatments to reduce conifer encroachment may be needed at some sites. The use of pesticides which may negatively impact this butterfly or the northern bog violet should be avoided.

Although silver-bordered fritillary is globally ranked G5 -- widespread, abundant and secure throughout its range (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 2007). In Oregon this species of butterfly is ranked S2 -- imperiled. Populations have recently been put under stress due to habitat drying and succession.

Currently, the project area provides marginal habitat. More suitable habitat likely occurs on the eastern side of the river. There are no records of the species within the project area.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts and Determination

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to fritillary populations on the Deschutes National Forest. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore some habitat for the species.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A Inundation of the meadow, as proposed under these alternatives would help create habitat for this species. Habitat drying is suggested as a threat to this species and the action alternatives would convert the area back into the wet meadow it was historically. Willows, already present in the meadow, would grow and provide more habitat. The proposed actions would maintain hydrology.

Alternative 4 –

Option B Inundation of the meadow, as proposed under this alternative would help create habitat for this species. Habitat drying is suggested as a threat to this species and the action alternatives would convert most of the area back into the wet meadow it was historically. Willows, already present in the meadow, would grow and provide more habitat. The proposed actions would maintain hydrology.

This option, however, would once again dry a portion of the meadow that was flooded during the Pilot phase of the alternative. This would remove potential habitat for this species.

Option C

111

This option also creates potential habitat during the Pilot Phase of the Alternative. Unique to this option is the proposal to then plug the channels effectively drying the entire basin, reverting it back to the current condition. This option would most noticeably create potential habitat and then remove it.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The streambank restoration and recreation improvements would likely have no impact to silver-bordered fritillaries or potential habitat. There would be an increase in willows along the riverbank as a result to the restoration activities but the amount of area is small and not likely to have measurable impacts.

Option A under Alternative 4, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have beneficial impacts to potential silver-bordered fritillary individuals and habitat. Options B and C under Alternative 4 would initially create the same benefits, but as the adaptive management alternative, there is the option that closes the inlet/outlet channels depending on the results of the pilot phase. Closing the inlet/outlet channels would set the hydrology back to the current condition and the meadow would dry – specifically the threats to silver-bordered fritillary habitat mentioned above. Because Options B and C under Alternative 4 may have this outcome, it may impact individuals and habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing. The proposed actions are not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species or add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions; therefore, cumulative impacts to this species are not expected.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Table 9. Status and habitat of Management Indicator Species, Focal Bird Species, Birds of Conservation Concern and High Priority Shorebirds. Species Status* Habitat Presence Birds (raptors) Large open areas with cliffs and rock No habitat within or adjacent to the Golden eagle MIS, BCC, S4 outcrops proposed project area. Potential nesting and foraging Large snags, open country interspersed Red-tailed hawk MIS, S5 habitat adjacent to the proposed with forests project area. Mature and old-growth forests; Potential nesting and foraging Northern goshawk MIS, S3B especially high canopy closure and habitat adjacent to the proposed large trees project area. Similar to goshawk, can also use Potential nesting and foraging Cooper’s hawk MIS, S4 mature forests with high canopy habitat adjacent to the proposed closure/tree density project area. Potential nesting and foraging Similar to goshawk in addition to Sharp-shinned hawk MIS, S4 habitat adjacent to the proposed young, dense, even-aged stands project area. BCC, Landbird No habitat within or adjacent to the Ferruginous hawk Open sagebrush flats focal species, S3B proposed project area. No habitat within or adjacent to the Swainson’s hawk BCC, S3B Open country, mixed forest proposed project area. BCC, Landbird No habitat within or adjacent to the Prairie falcon Rimrock and open country focal species, S4 proposed project area.

112

Species Status* Habitat Presence Potential nesting and foraging Large snags associated with fish Osprey MIS, S4 habitat adjacent to the proposed bearing water bodies project area. Nesting and foraging habitat within Mature and old growth forests Great gray owl MIS, S3 and adjacent to the proposed project associated with openings and meadows area. BCC, Landbird Interspersed grassy openings and dense No habitat within or adjacent to the Flammulated owl focal species, S3B thickets in mixed conifer forests proposed project area. Open grasslands, especially prairie, Landbird focal No habitat within or adjacent to the Burrowing owl plains, and savanna, nests in lava species BCC, S3B proposed project area. cavities in some areas Potential habitat adjacent to the Woodpecker Species MIS proposed project area. Variety of forest types but more Potential habitat adjacent to the Northern flicker MIS, S5 associated with forest edges proposed project area. Mixed conifer and ponderosa pine Potential habitat adjacent to the Hairy woodpecker MIS, S4 forests proposed project area. Potential habitat adjacent to the Downy woodpecker MIS, S4 Riparian hardwood forest proposed project area. Black-backed MIS, Landbird No habitat within or adjacent to the Lodgepole pine forests, burned forests woodpecker focal species, S3 proposed project area. Northern three-toed High elevation and lodgepole pine No habitat within or adjacent to the MIS, S3 woodpecker forests proposed project area. MIS, BCC, Red-naped Potential habitat adjacent to the Landbird focal Riparian hardwood forests sapsucker proposed project area. species, S4 MIS, BCC, Mature or old growth conifer forests Williamson’s No habitat within or adjacent to the Landbird focal with open canopy cover; weak sapsucker proposed project area. species, S4B, S3N excavator Mature to old-growth mixed conifer No habitat within or adjacent to the Pileated woodpecker MIS, S4 forests proposed project area. Snags and Downed Potential habitat adjacent to the wood associated MIS Snags and down woody material proposed project area. species and habitat Potential habitat exists within Waterfowl MIS Lakes, streams, rivers project area. Potential habitat adjacent to the Eared grebe MIS, BCC Open water with emergent vegetation proposed project area. Grouse Landbird focal No habitat within or adjacent to the Blue grouse Subalpine fir species, S4 proposed project area. Other non-passerine landbirds Potential habitat adjacent to the Yellow-billed cuckoo BCC, SHB Riparian hardwoods proposed project area. Calliope Open montane forest, mountain BCC Potential habitat adjacent to the hummingbird meadows, and willow and alder proposed project area. thickets Open grassland or agricultural land; No habitat within or adjacent to the Black swift BCC, S2B Nests behind or next to waterfalls and proposed project area. wet cliffs Passerine Landbirds Sage thrasher BCC No habitat within or adjacent to the Sagebrush proposed project area. Black-chinned BCC No habitat within or adjacent to the Ceanothus and oak covered hillsides sparrow proposed project area. Landbird focal No habitat within or adjacent to the Clark’s nutcracker Mature/old-growth Whitebark pine species, S4 proposed project area.

113

Species Status* Habitat Presence Landbird focal Mature ponderosa pine forests and Potential habitat adjacent to the Pygmy nuthatch species, S4 snags proposed project area. Landbird focal Open understory ponderosa pine No habitat within or adjacent to the Chipping sparrow species, S4 forests with regeneration proposed project area Landbird focal Potential habitat adjacent to the Brown creeper Large trees in mixed conifer forests species, S4 proposed project area. Landbird focal Multi-layered/dense canopy in mixed No habitat within or adjacent to the Hermit thrush species, S4 conifer forests proposed project area Olive-sided Landbird focal Edges and openings created by Potential habitat adjacent to the flycatcher species, wildfire in mixed conifer forests proposed project area. Potential habitat within or adjacent Willow flycatcher BCC Willow and alder shrub patches to the proposed project area. Pinyon jay BCC Juniper, juniper-ponderosa pine No habitat within or adjacent to the transition, and ponderosa pine edges proposed project area. Green-tailed towhee BCC Open ponderosa pine with dense brush No habitat within or adjacent to the proposed project area. Black crowned rosy- Rock outcroppings and snowfields No habitat within or adjacent to the BCC finch proposed project area. Open country with scattered trees and No habitat within or adjacent to the Loggerhead shrike BCC, S3B, S2N shrubs proposed project area. BCC, Landbird Rocky, dry hillsides with scattered No habitat within or adjacent to the Virginia’s warbler focal species, S4 trees proposed project area. BCC, Landbird No habitat within or adjacent to the Brewer’s sparrow Mountain mahogany focal species, S4 proposed project area. BCC, Landbird No habitat within or adjacent to the Sage sparrow Sagebrush habitats focal species, S4 proposed project area. Shorebirds Landbird focal Potential habitat within or adjacent Sandhill Crane Montane meadows species, S3 to the proposed project area. Riparian edge habitats including lakes, Potential habitat exists within Great blue heron MIS, S4 streams, marshes and estuaries project area. Upland sandpiper BCC (BCR-10), Grassy fields (4-8” tall) with open HPS (HC) patches. Inhabits prairie-grassland habitat and montane meadows Potential habitat in project area surrounded by lodgepole and sometimes ponderosa pine Grassy marshes and tidal flats No habitat within or adjacent to the Whimbrel BCC, HPS (HC) proposed project area. American golden HPS (HC) Upland tundra, rare in OR in dry No habitat within or adjacent to plover mudflats, fields and pastures proposed treatment areas Snowy plover BCC, HPS (HI) No habitat within or adjacent to Sandy beaches proposed treatment areas Marbled godwit BCC, HPS (HI) Expansive mudflats and sandflats on No habitat within or adjacent to beaches proposed treatment areas No habitat within or adjacent to the Long-billed curlew BCC, HPS, S3B Dry grasslands proposed project area. Sanderling BCC, HPS Sandy beaches with wave action No habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas No habitat within or adjacent to the Solitary Sandpiper HPS (HC) Small, freshwater mudflats proposed project area. No habitat within or adjacent to the Western Sandpiper HPS (HC) Mudflats and sandy beaches proposed project area. Short-billed dowitcher HPS (HC) Mudflats and shallow muddy ponds No habitat within or adjacent to along coast proposed treatment areas No habitat within or adjacent to Wilson’s Phalarope HPS (HC) Shallow ponds with grassy marshes proposed treatment areas Mammals Rocky Mountain Elk MIS, S5 Mixed habitats Key elk habitat in the project area.

114

Species Status* Habitat Presence Habitat within or adjacent to the Mule deer MIS, S5 Mixed habitats proposed project area. Mixed conifer or high elevation late- No habitat within or adjacent to American marten MIS successional forests with abundant proposed treatment areas down woody material Management Indicator Species come from the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Plan (LRMP)[1990]; Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) come from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern – BCR 9 (Great Basin) [2008]; Landbird Focal Species come from the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000); and Shorebirds come from the 2004 US Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Oregon Sensitive Species determined from the Natureserve database for Oregon: S1, critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure, B = breeding, N = non-breeding, SNA – status not applicable, SHB – possibly extirpated. HPS – High Priority Shorebird, HC – High Concern

Discussion of the specific effects on MIS and Sensitive species with habitat in or near the project area are included in the Wildlife Report in the project file and is incorporated by reference. A summary of the effects to some of these species are included in the following section. Species that have a “No habitat within or adjacent to the proposed project area” conclusion received no further analysis.

Elk and Mule Deer: Management Indicator Species, S5-Secure

Not only are elk and deer present in the project area, but Ryan Ranch is designated as a Key Elk Area (KEA) under the LRMP. Analysis of effects to elk and mule deer are organized into two parts: one part will focus on direct and indirect impacts to individuals and their habitat; and the other part will focus on how the proposed actions impact the KEA specific standards and guidelines.

Key Elk Area Applicable Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990):

WL-45 Recreation Management in Key Elk Areas: Ryan Ranch

• Public use will be encouraged on travel routes which will minimize conflicts with elk. • Public use will not be restricted within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River during the calving season (May 1 to July 31). • Facilities will not be developed nor activities promoted which would encourage public use during the winter.

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

Elk may be negatively affected by the project. Mule deer would not likely be negatively affected by the project. Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) will be met for elk and mule deer.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Elk inhabit semi-open forest, mountain meadows, foothills, plains, and valleys on the Forest. They graze on grasses and forbs and browse woody vegetation shrubs and twigs. Under the Deschutes LRMP, elk management objectives are developed jointly with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

115

In general, elk use the meadow and its peripheral habitats. The elk herd, part of Upper Deschutes Management Unit, in the adjacent East Tumbull project has been tracked with radio collars and was found to winter in either the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA) on federal and private lands or to utilize winter range to the west in the Bend watershed (Steve George, ODFW). However, the overall numbers of elk in the herd that utilizes the Ryan Ranch KEHA has been showing a slow upward trend (source Glen Ardt and Steve George, ODFW). Elk use the area for hiding and thermal cover and foraging largely in the winter months. Elk primarily utilize habitats on the southwest side of the meadow for cover and to ‘bed down’. The dense lodgepole and interspersed willow and aspen stands in the project area may also provide a potential calving area. Elk generally calve late spring, May 1- July 31st. However this potential use may be compromised by the high degree of recreation traffic in the project area. Mule deer utilize the area year round, and due to its low elevation it is particularly important as winter range. Elk in the project area have somewhat acclimated to the existing condition around the key elk area. Consistent with a study by Thompson and Henderson, (1998) elk may habituate to human disturbances in urban fringe areas, where elk find refuge from hunting pressure. Developments including Sunriver (3,374 acres), Inn of the 7th Mountain (390 acres) and Highlands subdivision (1,311 acres) are located adjacent to the project area and provide foraging habitat for big game. The proposed project is within the larger Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (total acres equals 21,462). The project area is 214 acres, approximately 1% of the Key Elk Area. Meadow habitat types are uncommon on the Deschutes National Forest, a cursory analysis of meadows in the Ryan Ranch KEA and surrounding areas, revealed only a few smaller meadow habitats, mostly upstream of Ryan Ranch.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects (General effects) Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to deer and elk populations on the Deschutes National Forest. However, this alternative misses an opportunity to restore some foraging habitat for these species and better define recreational use areas to help reduce disturbance.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A Flooding of the meadow and restoring the wet meadow, as proposed under each of these alternatives, is anticipated to improve overall habitat diversity for elk, and the presence of standing water should provide additional security to animals from recreational disturbance. Though cover is not limiting in the area (USDA 2005), meadow restoration will improve summer hiding cover because of the screening effect of the increased abundance of hardwoods and shrubs. Additionally, meadow restoration will result in increased plant diversity and abundance beneficial to elk including hardwoods, shrubs, grasses and forbs: this will increase grazing and browsing opportunities.

The existing meadow will be replaced with a wetland habitat by reconnecting the river channel to the existing meadow. This action will effectively inundate 65 acres of the meadow from spring through summer (April-October).

The restoration of the meadow to a wetland would essentially preclude elk from utilizing the meadow for resting during the time it is flooded. The wetland would still provide some browsing

116

opportunities, e.g., willow elk will still be able to utilize the meadow for grazing and browsing as described above but the meadow will not be available as open resting habitat.

In winter, elk use the meadow in large groups during the day for security and thermoregulation needs. This use may still occur due to the low river flows at this time of year would reduce the depth and extent of flooding in the meadow. Effects to mule deer would be similar but reduced because there is not as much current deer use in the project area.

Alternative 4 –

Option B There would be less wet meadow habitat created with Option B (no wet meadow habitat in NE portion of meadow). Other impacts as described in the previous alternatives would be similar.

Option C Option C does not maintain the wet meadow restoration. Briefly the meadow would be flooded, and after the pilot phase the channels would be plugged and it would revert back to its existing state. This option would maintain the current foraging quality and resting potential.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Streambank restoration actions are not expected to impact deer or elk (other than providing browse). The area impacted is small and current bank depths are likely unusable by deer and elk. These actions may take place in October/November or March of a given year because that is when river levels are lowest. The March timeframe overlaps the general seasonal closure of the KEA for winter (Dec. 1st – March 31st). Actual streambank restoration (and other project implementation activities relating to the water levels) would likely take 2-3 days to complete at a time: 2 days for culverts to be installed, and artificial ditch filled; another 2 days for streambank restoration (plantings, log placement). These short timeframes are not expected to add to the current level of disturbance already experienced in the area.

Impacts to big game and their habitat as a result of the recreational developments/improvements are largely beneficial. Overall the recreation proposals will better organize recreation use in the area by better defining trails (ADA path and boardwalk) and parking areas. Designating a spot for a dog swim/fetch area is not expected to have measurable impacts, positive or negative, to big game. The swim/fetch area would be away from habitat more heavily used by big game, and this type of recreation use is not new to the area for currently the activity often takes place along the berm or at the boat ramp.

Cumulative Effects - Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The following past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects have the potential to act cumulatively with the proposed actions and impact elk and the KEA:

• Deschutes Aspen Enhancement, 60 acres total completed in 2010 – beneficial impacts due to increased forage • Implementation of East Tumbull, Sunriver HFRA projects, and West Bend. Reduction of cover within the KEA to threshold levels. • (fuels reduction/thinning, Rx fire, road closures) – reduction in cover, reduction in motorized traffic disturbance

117

• Road projects, Lava Island Falls access pavement, and annual road maintenance – increased motorized access • Scenic Byway welcome station to be constructed 2013/2014 in Ryan Ranch KEA o Cumulatively, less than 1% additive reduction in suitable elk habitat is anticipated from project implementation of the welcome station. • Private development adjacent KEA: Sunriver (3,374 acres), Inn of the 7th Mountain (390 acres) and Tetherow/Highlands subdivision (1,311 acres) – increased forage but also human/big game use conflicts on winter range • Highway 97 lane expansion • Private Fuels reduction projects around the KEA – reduced cover on private lands • Construction of paved bike path between Lava Lands Visitor Center and Sunriver (in KEA) and Benham Falls to Welcome Station (in KEA)- increased recreation traffic during summer and fall. • Current & increased recreation activity along river due to population expansion • Vehicle strike mortality along Hwy 46 and 41 • Hazard tree removal and power pole maintenance along Mid-State powerline (in KEA) • Road projects, Lava Island Falls access pavement, and annual road maintenance • Proposed Welcome Center Connector Trail (in and adjacent to Ryan Ranch KEA) • Storm King to Tyler’s Traverse mountain bike trail.

The proposed actions included in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have the potential to cumulatively affect wildlife when considered with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area. Analysis of these projects indicates that the Ryan Ranch Restoration project would not cumulatively affect cover and suitable habitat with the Ryan Ranch KEA to below threshold levels. The scale of the other projects is such that the amount of hiding cover affected is minimal. The Aspen/Willow projects within or adjacent to the Ryan Ranch promote vegetative species beneficial to providing hiding cover and calving habitat for elk.

The Ryan Ranch project would increase hiding cover and calving habitat within the KEA and would not cumulatively decrease these components of elk habitat. Other activities identified in the area do not affect hiding cover or calving habitat but could contribute to the disturbance of elk within or near the Ryan Ranch KEA, including illegal OHV, ongoing danger tree removal, and the Highway 97 lane expansion. Project Design Features are included in the Ryan Ranch project to minimize additional disturbance to elk during and following implementation.

The proposed actions are likely to incrementally add to the increasing recreational use of the area, especially during the summer and fall when it is most accessible. Paved paths, recreational improvements, and suburban development adjacent to the Forest contribute to the likelihood of increased use in the Key Elk Are and specifically the project area. Other management activities, together with implementing the proposed actions, add incrementally to the disturbance in the area.

The action alternatives (including the different options under Alternative 4) do not measurably differ in their incremental or cumulative impacts with the actions listed. Because each of the action alternatives includes streambank restoration and recreational developments/improvements, each action alternative will contribute cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed actions will be minimal because of their small “footprint” on the landscape and small scope of action. Streambank restoration will ultimately have beneficial impacts to elk and the KEA, whereas the recreational improvements will more likely accommodate existing uses in better defined areas.

118

Consistency with LRMP Standards & Guides – Key Elk Area

Hiding Areas (WL-47) The forested perimeter of the project area, i.e., the meadow, provides hiding cover for elk. Meadow and streambank restoration will increase the current hiding cover percentages in the KEA as riparian hardwoods develop. Existing hiding cover is present in 30-32% of the KEA. The project improves hiding cover in the long term and will incrementally increase hiding cover percentages in the KEA.

Thermal Cover (WL50) The LRMP S&G states that for thermal “to be suitable, a stand must be at least 10 acres, and have an average height of at least 40 feet.” The LRMP threshold minimum for thermal cover is 20% in the Ryan Ranch KEA. Existing thermal cover in the KEA is approximately 40%. Due to the small size (<1/4 acre) of the project area that would remove trees (new toilet and parking areas under all action alternatives), the project will not measurably reduce thermal cover in the Ryan Ranch KEA. The project is not anticipated to affect thermal cover for elk. Cumulatively, there will be no measurable reduction in thermal cover from implementation of the meadow restoration project. This project would not be additive to other projects.

Recreation (WL-45) The LRMP S& G states that for the Ryan Ranch KEA: “Facilities will not be developed nor activities promoted which would encourage public use during the winter.” Recreational trail use including hiking and mountain biking has been demonstrated to decrease ungulate feeding and resting times and increase flushing and travel time, thereby increasing energy expenditures and stress levels (Taylor and Knight 2003, Wisdom et al. 2004, Naylor et al. 2009). ATV riding and mountain bike riding were found to cause the largest reductions in feeding time (Naylor et al. 2009). Energy expenditures are of higher concern for elk during winter when foraging opportunities are reduced and thermoregulation needs increase.

Each one of the action alternatives contain proposed actions for recreation developments/improvements. The project area already receives a high degree of recreational use and human disturbance. The proposed actions will designate trails and parking areas, and provide for a new restroom and dog swim/fetch area. Each one of these activities already occur in the project area, thus the proposed actions will not be encouraging any more use. There will be no access maintenance to these sites in the winter and spring. Access will depend upon snow levels.

Conclusions

Alternatives 2, 3, and Options A, and B of Alternative 4 may negatively impact elk due to altering existing meadow habitat (flooding) and by potentially increasing the amount disturbance (recreation proposals) in the Ryan Ranch KEA but would not lead to a trend towards Federal listing. The scale of the project is very small in relation to the species’ range; and additive impacts are minimal. The Ryan Ranch project may impact individuals but overall population trends would remain stable. Effects on mule deer would be similar.

Red-tailed Hawk: Management Indicator Species, S5-Secure

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

The proposed actions may impact red-tailed hawk habitat. However, the actions would be consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines.

119

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Red-tailed hawks have an extremely wide tolerance for habitat variation. Red-tailed hawks are largely perch hunters. Habitat types that provide suitable perches (trees, utility poles, outcrops, etc.) and are open enough to permit the detection of ground-dwelling prey will typically support red-tailed hawks. Red-tailed hawks frequent woodland, agricultural land, clearcuts, grasslands, sagebrush plains, alpine environments, and urban areas. They construct nests in a variety of situations including tree, utility poles cliffs, and place their nests higher than other broad-winged hawks (Marshal et al. 2003).

The project area is considered good red-tailed hawk habitat; it contains mature trees for perching and the meadow provides prey habitat. Red tailed hawks have been observed in the area occasionally. A red-tailed hawk nest was discovered during project surveys for great gray owls in 2009. The nest is located in a dense stand of mature lodgepole pine on the southwest side of the meadow.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to hawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A The proposed actions may impact red-tailed hawk habitat. Habitat modification from a dry meadow to a wet meadow may indirectly affect red-tailed hawks by reducing some prey species (e.g., voles, and pocket gophers) in the meadow. However, red-tails are generalists and this loss of prey will be somewhat offset by an increase in wetland obligate prey species. Some changes to the vegetated characteristics of the forested meadow perimeter would occur as the vegetation adjusts to the higher water table. The existing mature lodgepole pine stand may die off giving way to species tolerant of higher water tables, including deciduous trees and shrubs.

Alternative 4 –

Option B Impacts to red-tailed hawks as a result of the actions unique to this Option are the same as for Option A under Alternative 4. This Option inundates and restores most of the meadow to a wet meadow except approximately 7 acres in the northeast portion. These seven acres would provide habitat for prey species that are currently using the area.

Red-tails are generalists and this loss of prey will be somewhat offset by an increase in wetland obligate prey species. Some changes to the vegetated characteristics of the forested meadow perimeter would occur as the vegetation adjusts to the higher water table. The existing mature lodgepole pine stand may die off giving way to species tolerant of higher water tables, including deciduous trees and shrubs.

Option C Under this option the wet meadow would not be maintained, the channels would be plugged and once again the meadow would be converted to a dry meadow. Because this would happen in a relatively short timeframe (less than 2 years), no impacts to red-tailed hawks are expected as a result of these actions.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

120

The removal of trees for some of the recreation developments to be used in the streambank restoration would not measurably affect nesting and foraging habitat. Red-tailed hawks can use a variety of habitats and often hunt over more open areas. This habitat would still be available in the area. There would be no developments or tree removal in the area of the known nest site. There is also the potential to disturb the red-tailed hawk pair and/or nest during project implementation. Heavy equipment use would occur along the streambank and during excavation of OSF ponds. However, these activities would occur in late fall or very early spring, outside the nest restriction period. Some additional heavy equipment use would also occur during parking lot expansion and construction of the new toilet. These activities are over ¼ mile away from the nest and the distance would mitigate disturbance to the nest. Standards and Guidelines in the LRMP focus on limiting disturbance to known nests (WL-2, 3, 4, and 5). Project activities would be seasonally restricted (see Section V, Mitigations #1).

The proposed actions, under any of the alternatives, may impact individuals but is not expected to contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species. The proposed action would not add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions because there are no other projects planned or currently ongoing that would affect wetlands or meadows. Therefore, cumulative impacts to red tailed hawks are not expected and continued viability of red-tailed hawks on the Deschutes National Forest is expected.

Mitigation Measures

Seasonally restrict project activities from March 1 through August 31 to avoid disturbance to a known nest.

Northern Goshawk: Management Indicator Species, S3B-Vulnerable at breeding habitat

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

There would be no measurable impacts to goshawks. The actions as proposed are currently consistent with applicable LRMP Standards and Guides.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

In Oregon, goshawks tend to select mature or old-growth stands of conifers for nesting, typically those having a multi-layered canopy with vegetation extending from a few meters above ground to more than 40 meters high. Generally, nesting sites are chosen that are near a source of water and are on moderate slope, usually having a northerly aspect. This habitat type is quite similar to that used by the Cooper’s hawk, but the trees tend to be older and taller and have a better-developed understory of coniferous vegetation (Reynolds et al. 1982). Foraging generally occurs within these mature stands where small openings occur. These birds generally forage on passerines (e.g. songbirds), but often utilize small mammals such as rodents as well as the occasional snowshoe hare. Some gallinaceous bird species are also preyed upon such as blue and ruffed grouse (Marshall et al. 2003). Surveys were conducted in 2009 and during many site visits to the project area in previous years (2003-2008) and since (2010-2013); no goshawks were detected.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

121

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to goshawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A The proposed activities under these alternatives are expected to have minimal impacts to northern goshawk habitat. Habitat modification from expansion of the wetland habitat would not likely affect goshawk habitat. Adjacent ponderosa pine stands (goshawk habitat) behind the lodgepole pine stands would not be affected by the proposed actions.

Similar to the red-tailed hawk; there would be an impact to prey species as the meadow is restored to a wet habitat. However, the impact is likely a change in prey species composition and not necessarily a change in overall availability.

Alternative 4 –

Option B This project is expected to have minimal impacts to northern goshawk habitat. Habitat modification from expansion of the wetland habitat would not likely affect goshawk habitat. Adjacent ponderosa pine stands (goshawk habitat) behind the lodgepole pine stands would not be affected by the proposed actions.

This Option would retain some of the dry meadow habitat after the Pilot Phase when one of the channels is plugged. This would retain a small portion of prey habitat that currently exists in the project area. Option C This project is expected to have minimal impacts to northern goshawk habitat. The meadow would be flooded for a short period of time (less than 2 years) and that is unlikely to cause a shift in foraging patterns by goshawks. Otherwise, this Option would have no impact to goshawks.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The recreational developments, parking lot expansion, and construction of the new toilet including removal of up to 20 mature trees would have limited impacts to goshawk habitat. This project would impact a very small amount of the total available nesting and foraging habitat within the watershed; and the actual location of the expansion, as an off-shoot of the current location, is not quality goshawk habitat. The streambank restoration activities are not expected to have any impact on goshawks because they do not occur in goshawk habitat.

The project would have a neutral effect on goshawks. Cumulative impacts to habitat from wet meadow restoration, parking lot and toilet construction are negligible. Therefore, cumulative impacts to goshawks are not expected and continued viability of goshawks on the Deschutes National Forest is expected.

As a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, the standards and guidelines are met through the analysis of available habitat and the provision for seasonal restrictions, specifically WL-6-12.

Mitigation Measures

If a nest is found during implementation then a seasonal restriction on all activities would be in effect around the new nest (PDC, Wildlife).

122

Cooper’s Hawk: Management Indicator Species, S4-Apparently Secure

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

There would be no adverse impacts to Cooper’s hawks. The actions as proposed are currently consistent with applicable LRMP Standards and Guides.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The Cooper’s hawk prefers coniferous, mixed and deciduous forests, as well as riparian, juniper, and oak woodlands. Vegetative profiles around nests are trees 30 to 60 or 50 to 70 years old in northwest and eastern Oregon, respectively, with tree densities of 265/ac. and 469/acre (Reynolds et al. 1982). Cooper’s hawks commonly nest in deformed trees infected with mistletoe (Marshall et al. 2003).

There are no known Cooper’s hawks nests within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas. Surveys for goshawks, often can disclose Cooper’s hawk territories, and any Cooper’s hawk responses would be noted during goshawk surveys. During the 2009 surveys for goshawks, no Cooper’s hawks were found. No Cooper’s hawks were observed during numerous visits to the sight from 2004-2013.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to Cooper’s hawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A Potential impacts include habitat modification from expansion of the wetland habitat. Cooper’s hawks may utilize the dense LP pine dominated stands that make up the meadow perimeter. As the forested perimeter adjusts to a higher water table, Cooper’s hawks could continue to utilize this perimeter and adjacent habitat for roosting and limited foraging.

Alternative 4 –

Option B This Option would have similar impacts as Option A under Alternative 4 but on a smaller area. However the area no longer flooded under this Option is not bordered by the lodgepole stands used by Cooper’s hawks in other parts of the project area.

Option C This project is expected to have minimal impacts to Cooper’s hawk habitat. Although this Option still floods the meadow during the Pilot Phase, it is only for a short period of time (less than 2 years) and not expected to make noticeable changes in the lodgepole pines along the edges of the meadow.

123

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Additional impacts would be limited to parking lot expansion and construction of the new toilet including removal of up to 20 mature trees on ¼ acre. This action would impact a very small amount of the total available nesting and foraging habitat within the watershed.

The streambank restoration actions would not impact Cooper’s hawks because they are not occurring within habitat for this species.

Cumulative impacts to foraging habitat are not measurable and therefore negligible, this impact would not be enough to cause a downward trend in Cooper’s hawk populations; continued viability of Cooper’s hawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest is expected. Cooper’s hawks may indirectly benefit from the wet-meadow expansion and riparian restoration via an increase in potential prey (e.g., songbirds).

As a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, the standards and guidelines are met through the analysis of available habitat and the provision for seasonal restrictions, specifically WL-13-20. If a nest is found during implementation then a seasonal restriction on all activities would be in effect around the new nest (Section V, Mitigation #1).

Sharp-shinned Hawk: Management Indicator Species, S4-Apparently Secure

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

There would have no adverse impacts to sharp-shinned hawks. The actions as proposed are currently consistent with applicable LRMP Standards and Guides.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Sharp-shinned hawks in Oregon breed in a variety of forest types that have a wide range of tree species, though most are dominated by conifers. Nests have been located at elevations that range from roughly 300 to 6,000 feet. Vegetative characteristics found at nest sites, include high tree density and high canopy cover, which produce cool, shady conditions. Nest stands preferred by sharp-shinned hawks are younger than those preferred by Coopers’ and goshawk, usually 25-50 yr old, even-aged stands. In eastern Oregon all nest sites found by Reynolds et al. (1982) were in even- aged stands of white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or aspen, with ground vegetation limited to grasses and creeping barberry (Marshall et al. 2003).

There are no known sharp-shinned hawk nests within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas. Surveys for goshawks, often can disclose sharp-shinned hawk territories, and any sharp-shinned hawk responses would be noted during goshawk surveys. During the 2009 surveys for goshawks, no sharp- shinned hawks were found. No sharp-shinned hawks were observed during numerous visits to the sight from 2004-present.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to sharp-shinned hawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

124

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A This project is expected to have minimal negative impacts to sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Similar to the other accipiter species (goshawk and Cooper’s hawk), the proposed actions may alter prey sources for sharp-shinned hawks but would not likely reduce overall abundance.

Alternative 4 –

Option B This project is expected to have minimal negative impacts to sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Similar to the other accipiter species (goshawk and Cooper’s hawk), the proposed actions may alter prey sources for sharp-shinned hawks but would not likely reduce overall abundance.

Option C This project is expected to have minimal negative impacts to sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Similar to the other accipiter species (goshawk and Cooper’s hawk), the proposed actions would not likely change habitat conditions in the long-term.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Tree removal in the area of the recreation developments may remove some perch tress, but the stands immediately around these developments are not quality sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Suitable habitat is not considered limited on the Forest, and can be found in and adjacent to the watershed.

The streambank restoration actions would not impact sharp-shinned hawks because they are not occurring within habitat for this species.

Cumulative impacts to foraging habitat are negligible, this impact would not be enough to cause a downward trend in Sharp-shinned hawk populations and continued viability of sharp-shinned hawk populations on the Deschutes National Forest is expected. This species is ranked locally and regionally as “apparently secure”. This project would impact a very small amount of the total available nesting and foraging habitat within the watershed. Sharp-shinned may indirectly benefit from the wet-meadow expansion and riparian restoration via an increase in potential prey, e.g., songbirds.

As a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, the standards and guidelines are met through the analysis of available habitat and the provision for seasonal restrictions, specifically WL-21-29. If another nest is found during implementation then a seasonal restriction on all activities would be in effect around the new nest (Section V, Mitigation #1).

Osprey: Management Indicator Species, S4-Apparently Secure

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

The proposed actions are not expected to negatively impact osprey habitat. Implementation of these actions would not contribute to negative cumulative impacts to this species. The actions as proposed are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Osprey historically nested only in forested regions of Oregon because of its selection for large live trees (broken top) or dead trees (snags) for nest sites. Nests in Oregon are usually located within 2

125

miles of water with an accessible fish population. Their main prey is live fish – slow-moving species that swim near the surface. However, they may also take other vertebrate species (birds, reptiles, and small mammals) but this represents only a very small proportion of their diet (Csuti et. al 1997).

There are no known occupied sites within the project area. There are three nests near the project area. These could all be the same territory of one pair. All of the nests are located on the east side of the river towards Dillon Falls. Upon several visits to the project area, these nests did not appear to be occupied in 2009. The nest would be surveyed prior to project implementation and a seasonal restriction would be applied to ensure that the project will not interfere with the nest during breeding season.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to osprey populations along the Deschutes River. Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A This project would not negatively impact osprey habitat; osprey utilization of the project area may increase as the amount of standing water habitat in the project area would increase. Prey species diversity, other than fish, may be enhanced through wet meadow restoration. Some prey fish may still enter the meadow through the open channels but better habitat for these prey would be in the river channel.

Alternative 4 –

Option B This project would not negatively impact osprey habitat; osprey utilization of the project area may increase as the amount of standing water habitat in the project area would increase.

Option C Actions unique to this option would not alter habitat for osprey except in in the short period during the pilot phase. This is not expected to impact osprey.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives There would be impacts from construction of the new parking area and toilet; up to 20 trees are would be felled. Some of perch trees may be removed but none of the nest trees would be removed.

Although the streambank restoration activities would not have adverse impacts to osprey habitat, the machinery used for project implementation may cause disturbance impacts to the nearby nests. This effect as a result of the restoration activities is minimized because they are likely to occur in October/November or March which is outside of the breeding season. However, recreation improvements may occur during the breeding season, thus a mitigation measure for a seasonal restriction would minimize any disturbance impacts.

There would be no measurable cumulative impacts because there are limited negative direct or indirect impacts (disturbance and perch tree removal potential), and continued viability of osprey populations on the Deschutes National Forest is expected.

126

Applicable standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met. Standards and guidelines in the LRMP focus on limiting disturbance to known nests (WL-2, 3, 4, and 5).

Mitigation Measures

In the event that an osprey nest becomes active during project implementation, seasonally restrict project activities from April 1 through August 31 to avoid disturbance (PDC, Wildlife).

Great Gray Owl: Management Indicator Species, S3 Vulnerable

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

The proposed actions may impact great gray owls and their habitat. The implementation of these actions would not contribute to negative cumulative impacts to this species. The project as proposed is consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Great gray owl (GGO) nest stands vary in stand type ranging from mixed stands of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine to mixed conifer. Within these stands, optimum nesting habitat canopy cover ranges from 50-70%. Nest stands are generally associated with open forest containing canopy closure that ranges from 11-59% dominated with grasses, open grassy habitat, including bogs, selective and clear-cut logged areas, and natural meadows (Bull and Henjum 1990). The LRMP defines this owl’s habitat as being: lodgepole pine dominated overstory, overstory tree density of 67 trees per acre for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height, canopy cover of 60% (50-70%), and distance to nearest meadow 440 (63-1,070ft.) feet (LRMP WL-31). There is habitat within the proposed project area that is associated with grassy openings or natural meadows.

Though the project is outside of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), the science is still applicable. The NWFP states “the great gray owl, within the range of the northern spotted owl, is most common in lodgepole pine forests adjacent to meadows. However, it is also found in other coniferous forest types. Specific mitigation measures for the great gray owl, within the range of the northern spotted owl, include the following: provide a no-harvest buffer of 300 ft. around meadows and natural openings and establish ¼ mile protection zones around known nest sites” (Page C-21). Great gray owls have a home range size of approximately 1,000-2,000 acres (Natureserve 2013).

A GGO was sighted during a project planning field trip in the project area in 2008. There have been more recent sightings in the project area in 2010-2013. Surveys for great gray owls were conducted in 2009 and one nesting pair was discovered, however the nest location was not determined (adult and young seen separate from a nest). The nest may be located in a mixed conifer stand near the NW portion of the meadow or possibly in the pine/aspen stands on the east side of the river.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no actions taken, this alternative would have no effects to great gray owl populations on the Deschutes National Forest.

127

Alternatives 2, 3 and Alternative 4 Option A Wetland restoration is not expected to have a negative impact to this potential GGO pair and nest habitat. Impacts would be limited to habitat modification from expansion of the dry meadow to wetland or ponded water habitat, but it has been demonstrated along other parts of the Deschutes River that great gray owls will still use wet meadow habitat ( as evidenced by at least one other nest site further upstream). As discussed above, GGO’s forage in open meadows, and even bogs. Wetland restoration would likely decrease conditions for pocket gophers which are a prey species for great gray owls. However, this effect will be somewhat off-set by a gain in habitat or other rodent species (e.g. voles). The wetland is expected to be approximately 65 acres (new area influenced by inundation during low and high flows, respectively).

Alternative 4 –

Option B Wetland restoration is not expected to have a negative impact to this potential GGO pair and nest habitat. Impacts would be limited to habitat modification from expansion of the dry meadow to wetland or ponded water habitat, but it has been demonstrated along other parts of the Deschutes River that great gray owls will still use wet meadow habitat ( as evidenced by at least one other nest site further upstream). As discussed above, GGO’s forage in open meadows, and even bogs. Wetland restoration would likely decrease conditions for pocket gophers which are a prey species for great gray owls. However, this effect will be somewhat off-set by a gain in habitat or other rodent species (e.g. voles). This is a reduction of 7 acres restored to a wet meadow from the estimate under Alternatives 2, 3 and Option A under Alternative 4. In a small way, these 7 acres may still provide pocket gopher habitat.

Option C This Option temporarily floods the slough basin, restoring the wet meadow for up to 2 years. After which the channels will be plugged and the meadow will be allowed to dry out again. Because of the relatively short timeframe, no impacts to great gray owl prey species, and great gray owls, are expected.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives A seasonal restriction will ensure that the recreational development/improvement portion of the project will not interfere with the nest during the breeding season LRMP (WL-33). No direct impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Upon determination of the actual nesting area, a minimum of a 30 acre nest stand will be designated around the nest. This nest stand would be comprised of sufficient habitat listed in the LRMP (WL-31). Up to 20 trees would be felled during preparation of the new parking area and toilet; no snags are proposed for cutting and any tree felling would not occur within the suspected nest stand. Cumulative impacts to GGO habitat would not occur, because there are no other current or reasonably foreseeable projects that would affect meadow habitat. Impacts to the species would likely be negligible given the species range and available habitat in the area (watershed, region, and river corridor); owl populations on the Deschutes National Forest are expected to remain viable. The scale of the project is small in relation to the species’ range. Applicable standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met.

Mitigation Measures

128

Survey the project area in spring prior to project implementation (Mitigation #2) and seasonally restrict project activities from March 1 through June 30 to avoid disturbance to any known nest (WL- 33). See PDC, Wildlife.

WOODPECKER/CAVITY NESTERS

Northern flicker (MIS), Downy (MIS), and Hairy woodpeckers (MIS), and Red-naped sapsucker (MIS). These species associate with snags for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Lewis’ and White Headed woodpeckers (S & MIS) are addressed in the Biological Evaluation.

Summary of Effects and Plan consistency

The proposed action would not measurably impact woodpecker habitat. Expansion of wetland fringe may be beneficial to northern flicker habitat as additional snags will be created. Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met or are not applicable, including WL-37.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Northern flickers are perhaps the most common woodpecker resident in Oregon. They can be found in a range of terrestrial habitat but are generally abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country (Marshall et al. 2003). Being a large cavity nester (12.5” long according to Sibley 2005); they require large snags or large trees with decay in order to build their nests. Northern flickers have been observed within the project area. Potential habitat for this species is considered any plant association with large trees. Although there has been a large reduction of LOS stands within the watershed, this species has managed to tolerate and even thrive in habitats created by human-induced change. This bird locally and regionally remains secure.

Bull et al. (1986) reported hairy woodpeckers using both lodgepole and ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats and a variety of snags sizes. This species occurs in mature stands and utilizes (i.e. nest and forage) snags greater than 10 inches in diameter. Hairy woodpeckers may forage along edges including timber sale units. Hairy woodpeckers have been observed in the project area.

The project area contains potential habitat for downy woodpeckers; specifically within the deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests or riparian areas (Marshall et al. 2003, Csuti et al. 2001) adjacent to the Deschutes River and adjacent the meadow where quacking aspen and other deciduous trees occur. Downy woodpeckers have not been observed within the watershed, but no surveys were conducted.

The red-naped sapsucker inhabits a variety of coniferous forest communities within which there are stands of quaking aspen. In mountains, it also uses riparian woodlands of willow and other deciduous trees (Csuti et al. 2001). According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species include: lack of recruitment of young aspen due to livestock grazing and fire suppression; reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags due to limited replacement; encroachment of conifer trees into aspen stands; and competition for nest cavities with European starlings. The red-naped sapsucker has not been observed within the watershed. Potential habitat would occur along the Deschutes River and adjacent the meadow where quacking aspen and other deciduous trees occur.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

129

No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Up to 20 trees would be felled during preparation of the new parking areas and toilet; no snags are proposed for cutting. Potential indirect impacts would be limited to habitat modification from expansion of the wetland habitat. Northern flickers may utilize the dense lodgepole pine dominated stands that make up the meadow perimeter. As the forested perimeter adjusts to a higher water table, additional snags would likely be created. Additional hardwoods including aspen may also be generated from expanding the meadow perimeter. Woodpeckers and sapsuckers could capitalize on the new snag rich habitat for nesting and especially foraging in the short term.

Meadow and streambank restoration, including hardwood planting, will proliferate the development of diverse and robust riparian and wetland vegetation therefore increasing habitat. Red-naped sapsuckers and downy woodpeckers would specifically benefit from an increase in hardwoods.

Since there are no measurable impacts there are no cumulative impacts; activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed. Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met or are not applicable, including: WL-37.

Snags and Downed Wood Associated Species and Habitats: Management Indicator Species Group

The preceding discussion on woodpeckers covers most of this group of species. Down wood associated species, e.g. rubber boa, rodents, etc., would not be negatively affected by the project as snag levels would increase and no existing snags or down wood would be removed. Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met, including: WL-72.

Waterfowl, Management Indicator Species

There are numerous waterfowl species included in this group. Few species are currently known to utilize the project area including the river and meadow habitats, e.g., Canada goose and Mallard. However, the project area is potential habitat for numerous species. MIS waterfowl have been broken into 3 groups. Group 1 contains the cavity nesting species: wood duck, common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, hooded merganser and common merganser. Group 2 includes waterfowl associated with grassy areas or openings near water: Canada geese, Gadwall, American widgeon, northern shoveler, northern pintail and lesser scaup. Group 3 includes species that rely heavily on habitat (usually emergent vegetation) adjacent to an actual body of water (often a marsh or lake): Mallard, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked duck, Ruddy duck, pied-billed grebe, eared grebe and western grebe. The horned grebe, red-necked grebe, Bufflehead duck and Harlequin duck (R6 Sensitive & MIS) are addressed in the Biological Evaluation.

Group 1 (cavity nesters)

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Potential habitat for these species within the project area would occur within the deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests or riparian areas adjacent to the Deschutes River and adjacent the meadow where quacking aspen and other deciduous trees occur. The common merganser is the only species observed in the project area (river), however, surveys were not specifically conducted.

130

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No direct impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Potential indirect impacts would be limited to habitat modification from expansion of the wetland habitat. Cavity nesting waterfowl may utilize the dense lodgepole pine dominated stands that make up the meadow perimeter. As the forested perimeter adjusts to a higher water table, additional snags may be created. Cavity nesters could capitalize on the new snag rich habitat for nesting and foraging.

Meadow and streambank restoration, including hardwood planting, will proliferate the development of diverse and robust riparian and wetland vegetation therefore increasing habitat for cavity nesting waterfowl. Cavity nesters including, wood duck, goldeneye and merganser’s will benefit benefits by the creation of additional snags in the short term.

Therefore, restoration actions would be beneficial to cavity nesting waterfowl. Implementing the project would not remove snags. Since there are no measurable impacts there are no cumulative impacts; activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed. Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met, including: WL-39.

Group 2 (grassy areas/openings near water):

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

This group of waterfowl would likely be negatively affected by the project. Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) would not be met for this group.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This group of waterfowl would likely be negatively affected by the project, specifically via meadow inundation. Canada geese for example, are currently known to nest in the dry meadow. As a result of the project, seasonal inundation of the meadow would begin around mid-April and sustained through mid-October thereby substantially reducing the available nesting habitat. Post meadow restoration, some ‘drier’ (non-innundated) habitat would remain available on the margins, including up to 30 acres of ‘new’ habitat. Additionally, the creation of wildlife islands (up to 2 acres) would mitigate the potential loss of meadow habitat. Migrating waterfowl of this group would still utilize the area but implementing the project would likely preclude them from nesting in the existing meadow area.

Activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed; there are no other projects that would affect meadow or wetland habitat. Impacts resulting from the proposed action would still be minimal because of the scale of the project in relation to the range of this species and their ability to use a variety of habitats including developed areas. The Ryan Ranch project may impact individuals but overall population trends would remain stable.

Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have not been met for this group; WL-39 addresses increasing production of waterfowl through enhancement activities.

Group 3 (open water or water with emergent vegetation):

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

131

This group of waterfowl would not likely be negatively affected by the project. Specifically, meadow inundation may improve habitat for this group. Meadow restoration would generally increase the available habitat for these species. Depending on river flow, approximately 63-70 acres of additional wetland and wet meadow habitat would be created. It is doubtful few of these species currently use the meadow for nesting. Meadow restoration will alter the hydrologic condition and timing of high and low water levels and likely preclude them from nesting if they did occupy the site. See discussion on yellow rails under effects to R6 Sensitive Species section.

Streambank restoration would have a “Beneficial Impact” on these species by restoring riparian habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (fish, amphibians, aquatic insects and plant material). This group may specifically benefit from this action by increasing in channel habitat complexity.

Activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed; there are no other projects that would negatively affect meadow or wetland habitat. Impacts resulting from the proposed action would still be minimal because of the small amount of habitat impacted and the ability of this species to use a variety of habitats. Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met for this group, including: WL-39. The project will generally benefit this group of waterfowl by improving habitat thereby attracting foraging resident and migratory waterfowl.

Yellow-billed cuckoo, BCC & shorebird

Summary of Effects

No negative impacts would be expected; the project would be beneficial by improving habitat.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Currently a rare, irregular visitor east of the Cascades (Marshall et al. 2003). Most reports of this bird in eastern Oregon are from riparian areas dominated by willows (Marshall et al. 2003). Though marginal, willow dominated habitat does occur within or adjacent to the project area. The yellow- billed cuckoo has not been observed within the project area. However, no surveys were conducted.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No negative impacts would occur to the yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat. The project would be beneficial by expanding and improving riparian and wetland habitat. Meadow and streambank restoration, including hardwood planting, will improve riparian and wetland vegetation therefore increasing habitat.

Calliope Hummingbird, BCC

Summary of Effects

No negative impacts would be expected; the project would be beneficial by improving habitat.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

132

Calliope hummingbirds are the smallest breeding bird in North America and the smallest long- distance migrant in the world. They are rare to locally uncommon in the eastern Cascades. They occupy open mountain meadows, open forests, meadow edges, and riparian areas. This species breeds from timberline to lower forest margins but primarily occur at middle elevations. Their diet in Oregon is unknown but they have been seen taking nectar from various flowers especially tubular species. Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a substantial population decline for Oregon of 10.9% per year. However, this species appears to be expanding their range west of the Cascades which may reduce the decline.

Habitat for the calliope hummingbird includes alpine meadows, meadows, wetland buffers, and Class 1-4 riparian areas on the Deschutes and alder/willow, aspen, cottonwood, meadow, wetlands. Suitable habitat specific to the calliope hummingbird has not been mapped at this time.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No negative impacts would occur to the calliope hummingbird or its habitat. The project would be beneficial by expanding and improving riparian and wetland habitat. Meadow and streambank restoration, including hardwood planting, will improve wetland vegetation therefore increasing habitat.

Pygmy nuthatches, Landbird Focal Species, S4

Summary of Effects

No negative impacts would be expected

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

Pygmy nuthatches are a focal species for large trees in the ponderosa pine stand types (Altman 2000). In Oregon, it occurs in mature and old growth ponderosa pine or mixed-species forests dominated by ponderosa pine. However, sometimes they forage in young ponderosa pines and in lodgepole pine stands adjoining or near ponderosa pine stands (Stern et al. 1987). They nest in cavities in snags or dead portions of live trees (Norris 1958). Foraging is on outer branches in upper canopy on needle clusters, cones, and emerging shoots. Their diet varies by season and locale, but consists mainly of insects (Norris 1958). Population declines have been based on habitat deterioration caused by loss of large diameter snags and replacement of large ponderosa pines with smaller trees and other conifer species through fire control and logging (Agee 1993).

According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species (similar to Agee 1993) include: loss of large diameter ponderosa pine trees to logging; lack of recruitment of young ponderosa pine due to fire suppression that has allowed understory encroachment of firs; increased fuel loads that predisposes ponderosa pine stands to stand-replacement fires; and fragmented habitat increases energy expenditure and risk of predation to individual nuthatches.

This species has not been observed within the project area, but could occupy stands within the project area that area dominated by large ponderosa pine. No formal surveys were conducted.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

133

No negative impacts would occur to the pygmy nuthatches or its habitat. The scale of activities related to parking lot expansion (removal up to 20 trees) would not measurably affect habitat; no snags would be cut. Since there are no direct/indirect impacts there are no cumulative impacts.

Olive-Sided flycatchers, Landbird Focal Species, S4

Summary of Effects

No negative impacts would be expected.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The olive-sided flycatcher is a summer resident that breeds in low densities throughout coniferous forests of Oregon. The olive-sided flycatcher, an aerial insectivore, prefers forest openings or edge habitats where forest meets meadows, harvest units, rivers, bogs, marshes etc. (Marshall et al. 2003). Nesting success for the flycatcher was highest within forest burns where snags and scattered tall, live trees remain (Marshall et al. 2003 and Wisdom et al. 2000 p. 215). Common features of nesting habitat include tall prominent trees and snags used as foraging and singing perches. The flycatcher forages from high prominent perches at the tops of snags or from the uppermost branches of live trees and needs unobstructed air space to forage. It preys on flying insects and in particular, bees and wasps (Marshall et al. 2003 pp. 374-375).

Population trends based on BBS data show highly significant declines with an Oregon statewide decline of 5.1% per year from 1966-1996 for the olive-sided flycatcher. Factors potentially contributing to population declines on breeding grounds include habitat loss through logging, alteration of habitat through management activities (e.g., clear-cutting, fire suppression), and lack of food resources. (Marshall et al. 2003 p. 376). Wisdom et al. (2000 p. 218) also noted that where altered fire regimes result in fewer but larger fires, the juxtaposition of early and late seral habitats becomes less favorable. However, within the Columbia Basin our area (Southern Cascades) shows increases of >60% for the olive-sided flycatcher compared to other areas.

Habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher occurs throughout the Deschutes in the following plant associations – lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, subalpine fir, Shasta red fir, western hemlock, mountain hemlock, and whitebark pine in open stands where the average tree size is 10”dbh or greater.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No negative impacts would occur to olive-sided flycatchers or its habitat. The scale of activities related to parking lot expansion would not measurably affect habitat (removal up to 20 trees); no snags would be cut. The olive-sided flycatcher would benefit from project implementation by the increase in snag creation from meadow expansion. Meadow restoration would be beneficial to olive- sided flycatchers by expanding wetland habitat.

Willow Flycatcher, BCC

Summary of Effects

No negative impacts would be expected. The project would be beneficial by expanding and improving wetland and riparian habitat.

134

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The willow flycatcher is a summer resident in Oregon. They are generally associated with shrub dominated habitats with an abundance of shrubs, low trees, and herbaceous vegetation (USDA 2004d). The willow flycatcher is associated with riparian willow thickets with dense shrubs and/or tall herbaceous plants with scattered openings of shorter herbaceous plants (Marshall et al. 2003). The willow flycatcher is an aerial insectivore, feeding primarily on the wing (Marshall et al. 2003).

Long-term BBS trends in Oregon document the willow flycatcher is experiencing population declines of 3.6% per year. Conservation concerns include the loss and degradation of the quality of riparian shrubs from altered hydrologic regimes, brush removal, disturbance and loss of habitat from overgrazing, and brown-headed cowbird parasitism (Marshall et al. 2003).

Habitat for the willow flycatcher includes hardwoods, alpine shrubs, mesic shrubs, wetland buffers, and Class 1-4 riparian areas on the Deschutes and alder/willow, aspen, cottonwood, wetland. Suitable habitat specific to the willow flycatcher has not been mapped at this time as assessments are generally conducted at a project level.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No negative impacts would occur to the willow flycatcher or its habitat. The project would be beneficial by expanding and improving riparian and wetland habitat.

Shorebirds, including MIS, Landbird Focal, BCC and HPS

Great blue heron, Management Indicator Species, S4

Summary of Effects and Plan Consistency

The great blue heron would not likely be negatively affected by the project. Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The great blue heron is one of the most wide-ranging waterbirds in Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003 p. 62). Highly adaptable, it is found along estuaries, streams, marshes and lakes throughout the state. Nest locations are determined by their proximity to suitable foraging habitat. Great blue herons nest in colonies within shrubs, trees and river channel markers where there is little disturbance (Marshall et al. 2003 pp. 62-64). Tree species utilized include ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and black cottonwood. While the average diameter of nest trees is 4.5 feet and the average height is 79 feet, they use a wide range of sizes from 1.5 to 6 feet in diameter and 43 to 120 feet tall (Marshall et al. 2003 pp. 62-64 ). They hunt shallow waters of lakes and streams, wet or dry meadows feeding on fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, mammals and birds. Habitat for the great blue heron on the Deschutes includes Class 1, 2, and 3 streams, lakes, wetlands, and meadows. Wetlands and lakes include both the wetland or water body and the associated buffer. Great blue heron have been observed in the project area.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

135

No negative impacts would occur to the great blue heron or its habitat. Great blue heron will utilize wet and dry meadows therefore project implementation would have a neutral affect on them.

Streambank restoration actions would not negatively impact this group as project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week. Streambank restoration would have a “Beneficial Impact” on these species by restoring riparian and wetland habitat and indirectly increasing food resources (fish, amphibians, small mammals, reptiles and aquatic insects).

Activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed. There are no other projects that would negatively affect meadow or wetland habitat. Impacts resulting from the proposed action would still be minimal because of the small amount of habitat impacted and the ability of this species to use a variety of habitats. Standards and guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met for this group or are not applicable. WL-35 & 36 addresses disturbance and maintenance of nest trees.

Sandhill Crane, Landbird Focal Species, S3

Summary of Effects

The sandhill crane would benefit from implementation the project.

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

The sandhill crane is a rare resident associated with freshwater, high elevation meadow/marsh habitats surrounded by mixed conifer forests. The sandhill crane utilizes floating nests and forages in nearby wet meadows. They generally build their nests in 0.5 to 3.0 feet of water, and forage in the nearby wet meadows or grain fields, if available (Marshall et al. 2003). The crane feeds on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates as well as small vertebrates. Sandhill crane populations seem to be fairly stable in Deschutes County. However, conversion of wetlands and predation continue to be major threats to this species (Marshall et al. 2003 pp. 198-200, 216-217). It is unlikely sandhill cranes nest in the project area but potential foraging habitat is available.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No negative impacts would occur to the sandhill crane or its habitat. Wetland restoration would have a “Beneficial Impact” on these species by restoring riparian and wetland habitat. Post restoration, sufficient water depth may be available for Sandhill cranes to nest in the wetland. Streambank restoration actions would not negatively impact this group as project implementation would occur in the fall outside of the nesting season. There is the potential for individuals to occur in the project area during migration. However, any disturbance would be of short duration because restoration actions are not anticipated to exceed one week. Activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed; there are no other projects that would negatively affect meadow or wetland habitat.

Upland sandpiper: Shorebird, BCC

Habitat Needs and Existing Condition

136

Upland sandpipers are associated with montane meadows of grasses and forbs surrounded by lodgepole pine and sometimes ponderosa pine forests at relatively high elevation (3,400-5,00 ft; Marshall et al. 2003). This type of habitat is present in Ryan Ranch meadow. Upland sandpiper use has not been documented in the meadow; however, surveys were not conducted.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

If present, upland sandpipers would likely be negatively affected by the project, specifically via meadow inundation. Restoration of the wet meadow would reduce available habitat. Post project implementation, a limited amount of habitat would remain available on the margins of the meadow. Sandpipers would still utilize the area. Streambank restoration, including riparian planting, will improve habitat for this species.

Activities associated with this project would not add incrementally to other projects within the watershed. There are no other projects that would affect meadow or wetland habitat. The scale of the project is very small in relation to the species’ range. The Ryan Ranch project may impact individuals but overall population trends would remain stable.

General effects to Wildlife species Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Avian Species: In general, the project would have a beneficial impact to avian species by improving riparian stream bank and wetland habitats. The project would increase native willow and sedge vegetation utilized by migratory and resident songbirds. The habitat and bank restoration has the potential to increase fish and waterfowl prey species for Bald Eagles and Osprey. The inundation of the slough basin is likely to reduce the extent or entirely displace the existing vole/shrew and pocket gopher prey base of Red Tailed Hawks from the meadow. However, Red Tailed Hawks are generalist species and do not depend on specific prey species for their diet. It is unlikely that the change to the prey base in Ryan Ranch Meadow would have adverse effects on Red Tailed Hawks in the area. The Wildlife analysis of specific effects for each avian species of concern is included in the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project file.

Ungulate Species: In general, flooding of the meadow is anticipated to improve overall habitat quality and diversity for elk. The presence of standing water should provide additional security to animals from humans, dogs and predators. Though cover is not limiting in the area (USDA 2005), the restoration will improve summer hiding cover by increasing the abundance of hardwoods and shrubs capable of providing screening. Additionally, the proposed restoration is likely to benefit grazing and browsing opportunities for elk due to an increase in beneficial browse species like hardwoods, shrubs, sedges and grasses. The conversion of the meadow habitat to a wetland would essentially reduce existing opportunities for elk to rest and graze on grasses and forbs in the meadow. However, flooding the meadow would also expand the area of saturated soils surrounding the meadow, especially up the Kiwa drainage to the west. Approximately 30 additional acres of potential habitat would be created beyond the existing meadow fringe as the water table rose in this area. The amount of habitat gained is estimated to be approximately half of the amount altered in the meadow, thereby minimizing total habitat altered. Additional ‘open’ habitat would also be available when the meadow recedes to low pool volume in the winter (mid-Oct through mid-April).

137

Implementation of the project will reduce the amount of existing meadow available as open resting habitat for elk during the summer. Elk use for resting and grazing will be displaced to varying degrees from much of the meadow between April 15 to Oct 15 as the change in hydrology begins to alter the extent and type of browse and grazing species. However, this may be offset by the creation of new meadow habitat to the west of the existing open meadow as existing conifers and understory vegetation respond to the rising water tables. Elk are likely to utilize the wetland created in the existing open meadow area for grazing and browsing opportunities as described above. Use of the open areas by the herd in the winter months during the day for security and thermoregulation needs is not likely to be affected. Effects to mule deer would be similar but much reduced.

Small mammals and rodents: Existing populations of pocket gophers, shrews and voles would be impacted by this project. Rising water tables and surface inundation of the meadow would likely displace subnivean use by the pocket gophers. Shrews and voles are more likely to adjust to the changed conditions and may not be displaced from the immediate area. Coyotes and avian predators would be indirectly affected as a result of changes to their prey base.

Botany ______

Management Direction

Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan (UDWSR): The Vegetative resource was identified in the UDWSR as an Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV) in Segment 4 because of Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. estesii, a Federal Category 2 Candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act. This species has been withdrawn from the Federal Category 2 Candidate list for protection under the Endangered Species List. As a result, the value of the Vegetative component in Segment 4 of the Wild and Scenic Corridor for this analysis is assumed to have changed from Outstandingly Remarkable to Significant. Analysis of the vegetative component focuses on the UDWSR Vegetation Standard in the document.

UDWSR Vegetation Standard: Native riparian vegetation will be healthy and dominate the periodically inundated and saturated areas within the river corridor. Riparian areas will be managed to support riparian dependent species, act as effective filters of overland flows, provide a natural source of woody material to the river system, buffer effects of floods and currents to streambanks, provide a dominant element of the scenery as viewed from the river, and provide wildlife habitat.

The applicable Vegetative guidelines from the UDWSR would be met by the project:

V-6: Meadow restoration will be permitted by methods (other than prescribed burning or hand tools) if they have no adverse effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The restoration of the Ryan Ranch slough basin would occur via the re-connection of natural historic channels between the river and the basin. No adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for all pertinent resources are anticipated as a result of this project. The project proposes to restore 0.3 miles of riverbank and convert an existing wet meadow community created and sustained by the dike to an inundated wetland habitat. The resulting riverbank would increase the presence of riparian sedges and willows, and buffer the effects of bankfull currents and low winter flows on the bank. The inundation of the slough basin would convert the existing wet meadow habitat to a fresh water emergent wetland that would

138

provide approximately 70 acres of habitat for wildlife and recreationists while maintaining or improving the ORVs of other resources considered under this analysis.

V-17: Vegetation to appear natural and emphasize the protection of riparian plant communities.

The project would re-vegetate approximately 0.3 miles of riverbank and initial floodplain with native sedges and willows. The re-creation of bankfull and initial floodplain elevations along the river bank would remove drier forb and grass species that currently populate the bank and promote the growth of native sedges and willows transplanted by the project. The inundation of the slough basin would provide enough water depth in portions of the meadow to slow the advance of the invasive Reed canarygrass (Phalaris sp.) that is currently spreading across the meadow.

Biological Evaluation: A Plant Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed by the District Botanist to document consideration of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plants related to the Ryan Ranch Meadow Restoration project. The BE was prepared for the project in compliance with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Subpart B; 402.12, section 7 consultation). Effects of activities proposed under the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration project were evaluated for TES plant species currently on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670.44, December 2011) that are documented or suspected to occur on the Deschutes National Forest. The Plant BE document is in the project file at the Bend/Ft Rock Ranger District office and is incorporated by reference.

Finding: The proposed action will have no impact on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive plant species.

Existing Condition

The project area is characterized by two plant communities, a dry meadow (Kentucky bluegrass) plant association and a wet meadow Carex sp. plant association. The meadow is seasonally wet during the spring and early summer months before drying through summer and early fall. Soils are characterized by a surface layer of organic and mineral materials, underlain by a thick lacustrine deposit of diatomaceous silts, mixed alluvium and highly weathered residuum.

There are no known TES plant species within the project area or in the immediate vicinity. The meadow was surveyed in late June 2003, received a cursory field survey in mid-September 2007, and was again surveyed in 2009 as part of a wetland delineation. A list of species from the 2003 survey is included in the project file. No TES plant species were observed to be present in any of the surveys. The nearest known TES plant is the green-tinged paintbrush (Castilleja chlorotica), which is present about four miles northwest of the project. This species has a low to moderate possibility of occurring in the uplands adjacent to the meadow. No habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate plant species exists within the project area. As a result, no survey is required prior to the implementation of proposed activities in this area.

Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4

139

No direct, indirect or cumulative effects on TES plant species have been identified for any of the Alternatives because they do not exist within the project. No suitable habitat for TES species was identified during field surveys.

Invasive Plants ______

Management Direction Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction requires that Noxious Weed Risk Assessments be prepared for all projects involving ground-disturbing activities. Management direction for Invasive Plants is also found in the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA, 2005a). Forest Service policy requires that decision documents must identify noxious weed control measures that will be undertaken during project implementation for projects that have a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds (FSM 2081.03, 29 November 1995). A determination of a high level of risk for the introduction or spread of noxious weeds from proposed activities has been made for this project. Existing Condition There is a known population of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, or RCG) within the Ryan Ranch basin, including a nearly homogenous area approximately 12 acres in size. Smaller areas of RCG are scattered throughout the meadow and another more contiguous band is present within the borrow ditch adjacent to the berm along the river. The growth size and flowering of this species has ranged in different water years from one foot tall and nearly all flowering stems missing on this normally tall species, to nearly three foot tall plants with full flowering and seed production. A moderate to heavy thatch of dead plant material lies at the base of the inner basin populations.

RCG populations on site were treated with the herbicides aquatic glyphosate and sethoxydim in the summer of 2013 under the Deschutes and Ochoco Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement. A follow up spot spray treatment occurred in September 2013 using only aquatic glyphosate. Initial visual monitoring indicates successful die back of the above ground RCG vegetation. The response of the underground rhizomes to the treatments will not be known until the 2014 growing season. The species has not been manually treated on the site due to the thick rhizomatous root system that makes it virtually impossible to pull by hand.

There are populations of spotted knapweed, dalmatian toadflax, and bull thistle at the Dillon Falls boat ramp parking area and the adjacent day use area. The populations are hand-pulled every year but continue to return. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is present in the day-use and parking areas at low background levels. There are also populations of other non-native plants such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and mullein (Verbascum thapsis), in addition to cheatgrass and Reed canary grass, on the berm and meadow edges. While these species are not on the state’s noxious list, they remain undesirable within a riparian plant community.

Invasive Risk Rating A risk rating of HIGH for the introduction or spread of noxious weeds has been determined for the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration project based on a combination of the following three factors:

140

1. Known weeds in/adjacent to project area. 2. Presence of vectors* #1-8 in project area. 3. Project operation in/adjacent to weed population.

The following vectors* are capable of introducing or spreading noxious weeds and ranked in order of weed introduction risk:

1. Heavy equipment (implied ground disturbance) 2. Importing soil/cinders 3. OHV's 4. Grazing (long-term disturbance) 5. Pack animals (short-term disturbance) 6. Plant restoration 7. Recreationists (hikers, mountain bikers) 8. Forest Service project vehicles

A risk ranking of HIGH is appropriate for this project because heavy equipment will be brought into the area and there are known weed populations at and near the site. Work at the site may spread existing non-native populations present on the berm and/or in the parking areas. Washing equipment prior to entering the project and before heading to the next project will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of weed introductions and spread.

Prevention Strategy The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA, 2005a) identifies standards for the prevention of weed introductions for restoration projects like Ryan Ranch (#’s 1, 2, and 7; see Appendix B of the Invasive Plants specialist report on file and incorporated by reference). These standards were further incorporated into the Invasive Plant Treatments EIS on the Deschutes National Forest (USDA, 2012) and outline weed prevention strategies for planning documents and the implementation phase of a project. Project design features (Botany PDFs, p. 30) have been developed for the project based on the following goals and guidelines for weed prevention practices listed in the USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices that are relative to timber harvest and recreation management activities. Each of the goals or guidelines listed below includes a description of prevention strategies relative to the Ryan Ranch Restoration Project. The inspection of fill material for weed seeds is included in this project as part of this strategy (Project Design Feature #18, p. 30): Recreation

 Recreation 1. Encourage public land users, before recreating on public lands, to inspect and clean motorized and mechanized trail vehicles of weeds and their seeds.

Educational material on noxious weeds is currently posted at off-highway vehicle trailheads; the Forest Service is moving toward posting such material at other recreational parking areas as well.

 Recreation 7. Annually inspect all campgrounds, trailheads, and recreation areas that are open to public vehicle use for weeds; treat new infestations.

141

Employees in the recreation department, including seasonal technicians hired to treat weeds, maintain an awareness of the noxious weed issue and report the presence of and treat weeds as necessary. Populations are investigated and treated, if practicable, after they are reported by Forest Service employees and the public.

 Recreation 8. Maintain trailheads, boat launches, outfitter and public camps, picnic areas, airstrips, roads leading to trailheads, and other areas of concentrated public use in a weed-free condition. Consider high use recreation areas as high priority for weed eradication.

The same comments included for Recreation 7 apply here.

 Recreation 10. In areas susceptible to weed infestation, limit vehicles to designated, maintained travel routes. Inspect and document inspections on travel ways for weeds and treat as necessary.

The Deschutes National Forest has completed an Access and Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 2011which closed motorized cross country travel and designated routes for motorized users. The main arterial roads on the district are monitored for weeds and most weed sites there are treated with herbicides, with follow-up manual treatments where needed. Although motorized vehicle traffic is not allowed in wetland and meadow areas like Ryan Ranch, there have been incidents of non-compliance.

 Recreation 11. Post weed awareness messages and prevention practices at strategic locations such as trailheads, roads, boat launches, and forest portals.

See discussion under Recreation 1.  Recreation 12. In weed-infested areas, post weed awareness messages and prevention practices at roadsides.

Deschutes County has posted large weed prevention signs at various points, and weed awareness posters are at most trailheads. There is an opportunity for postings at other roadside sites, including the Dillon Falls day use site adjacent to Ryan Ranch Meadow.

Noxious Weeds of Concern for the Project Area Noxious weeds are aggressive non-native plants that can invade and displace native plant communities and cause long-lasting management problems. Noxious weeds can displace native vegetation, increase fire hazards, reduce the quality of recreational experiences, poison livestock, and replace wildlife forage. Weeds reduce biological diversity and threaten rare habitats by simplifying complex plant communities. Potential and known weeds for the Deschutes National Forest are listed in Appendix A of the Invasive Plants specialist report for this project and is incorporated by reference. In addition to noxious weeds designated by the State, there is a group of non-native plants that are not officially termed "noxious” but are also aggressively invasive. These species are also included in this assessment.

142

Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is a perennial, rhizomatous grass that prefers seasonally or continually wet habitats, although it can tolerate prolonged periods of drought. Its rhizomes often form a thick sod layer, which can exclude all other plants. It grows up to 6 feet tall and its leaves can get up to ¾ “ wide. It can reproduce vegetatively through its rhizomes and by seed (TNC 2004). RCG populations within the Ryan Ranch basin were treated with the herbicides aquatic glyphosate and sethoxydim during the summer and early fall of 2013 under the Deschutes National Forest Invasive Plant Treatments EIS (USDA, 2012). Spotted knapweed, Centaurea bierbersteinii, is a very invasive plant which grows along most major highways in Central Oregon. It is a perennial forb in the sunflower family that lives for 3-5 years. It is very competitive on disturbed dry to mesic sites because it is able to germinate in a wide range of conditions and it grows early in spring before many native plants. Seeds may be dispersed on animals and humans, and by being caught up in vehicles. Distribution over large areas is linked to transportation systems. Known sites along Highway 46 were formerly being treated under the Noxious Weed Control Environmental Assessment (1998) and are currently being treated under the Deschutes National Forest Invasive Plant Treatments EIS (2012). Dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) looks like bright yellow snapdragons with leathery leaves clasping the stem and grows easily in dry rangeland sites, gravel pits, and along roadsides. It is a perennial plant and stands 2-4 feet tall. One plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds per year, and they remain viable in the soil for up to 10 years. Pulling this plant will usually result in more plants sprouting from its root system, unless all root parts are removed from the soil, which is often difficult to do. Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects: Existing invasives, particularly Reed canary grass, would likely continue to spread across the meadow under the current hydrologic conditions. Other invasives are likely to continue to spread across the berm because of the high amount of human and dog use at the site. Manual treatments of known populations along the access road and boat ramp areas would likely minimze the spread of invasives from this area. Herbicide treatments or other methods to treat the weeds that are not actions proposed in this project could reduce populations within the project area in the future. Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects from this project on invasive plants under the No Action alternative. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects: The use of heavy equipment used to install temporary culverts or long term channels, and complete the stream bank restoration and trail work at the site, including moving the entire berm farther inland, would directly disturb both native and invasive vegetative species. The disturbance of these areas would temporarily remove native and invasive vegetation from up to 0.3 miles of riverbank. Although Reed canarygrass propagules and cheatgrass seeds in the soil would have the potential to spread into these areas in the short term, the increase in moisture levels and active transplant of native vegetation onto the disturbed areas would favor the native sedges and willows transplanted on site and minimize the spread of these two species in these areas. Sedge mats from within the inner basin of the slough and an adjacent area to the south would be sourced for transplants and carefully inspected for seeds or

143

roots of weeds, especially of Reed canary grass, in order to minimize the risk of invasive re-location (PDF - Invasives #4). The re-location of the existing berm on which the Deschutes River trail is located approximately 30 feet farther from the river could move existing plants and root propugules of invasive species and cover existing plant populations unless they were uprooted and transplanted prior to that activity. The construction of a new berm to block off the northeast lobe of the meadow as part of the adaptive management option B in Alternative 4 would also bring the potential for weeds to be brought in if offsite material is used. Inspecting the material before use (PDF, Botany) will help reduce, but not eliminate, that possibility. The knapweed, toadflax, bull thistle, and cheatgrass populations in the soil seedbank of the upland parking areas have the potential to spread into mineral soil disturbed by the expansion/creation of new parking toilet facilities. Treatment of the existing weed species on the State’s noxious list prior to implementation (PDF – Botany) reduces these concerns, but does not eliminate the risk. Active transplanting and re-vegetation of disturbed areas within the project area with native species would also reduce this risk. Heavy equipment used for the restoration activities has the potential to carry and introduce noxious weed seeds or vegetative propogules to the site. Species such as dandelion are particularly susceptible to spreading into areas of disturbed and exposed mineral soil that would occur along the riverbank and the lowered berm. The risk of introducing noxius weeds to the site would be minimized by cleaning heavy equipment prior to entry into the project area (PDF – Botany). However, weed seeds and root propagules already on site would be capable of spreading into disturbed areas during the restoration activities, boardwalk construction, and facilities improvements. Overall, altering the berm and allowing the river water to enter and flood the meadow is likely to reduce the occurrence of the most problematic invasive plant in the area, Reed canary grass. Literature suggests that RCG can be reduced and even eradicated under certain flooding conditions. Long-term inundation does not appear to favor that species, creating anaerobic conditions capable of minimizing the growth and reproduction of this species through the growing season. The restored hydrology would inundate an estimated 50-75% of the RCG currently present in the meadow with water depths exceeding 1 foot for nearly the entire growing season of the plant (mid-April through mid-October). Populations within the Ryan Ranch basin are expected to be measurably retarded over 15 to 20 acres of the inner basin where flooding depths would be 2 to 4’ through the growing season.

RCG populations near the edges of the meadow may be enhanced where inundation is likely to be less than 1’ or the plants may not be flooded above that depth through the growing season. Native sedge species are likely to be affected in a similar manner and are likely to better compete with the RCG populations in these areas compared to the current seasonal water conditions. An assessment of the RCG population would occur over time to help determine the trend for this species and possibly influence more active management of the population in the future. High water conditions, particularly where predicted in the broad inner basin of the meadow, could promote the growth of other invasive plant species, such as Phragmites australis (a grass); that species is not currently known to be in the local area, but it will be important to monitor what species enter the newly-created wetland in order to quickly assess and act on that potential issue. Cumulative Effects The initial implementation of the Ryan Ranch project would likely cumulatively increase the spread of weeds within the area in the short term. Heavy equipment and ground disturbance within and adjacent to existing populations of invasives would provide a short term vector for this spread. Potential vectors for weed importation and spread would continue to be present in the long term as a

144

result of high levels of daily human use via motor vehicles to the site, and via hiking, biking and dog traffic through the area during the growing season. However, the restoration of wetland plant communities within the slough basin would reduce the amount of disturbed mineral soil conducive to the drier invasive species discussed in this analysis in the near future. Although weeds of one sort or another, either upland or riparian, would continue to be an issue at the Dillon Falls day-use area, parking areas, and the meadow/wetland. Comparison of Alternatives: The No Action and all Action Alternatives both have risks of continued weed spread since Ryan Ranch meadow and the existing berm are not in pristine condition from a plant community perspective. The No Action alternative would likely allow weeds already present to remain and/or spread because of the high amount of human and dog use at the site, especially on the berm, and the existing hydrology and ungulate grazing that appears to favor their growth cycles. This scenario would remain unless other action is taken unrelated to this project, such as herbicide treatments or other methods to treat the weeds. It is expected that the Action Alternatives would reduce and eradicate some amount of Reed canary grass that was inundated by at least two feet or more of water through the growing season, although RCG populations located in areas with less than two feet of inundation would likely prosper. However, the longer duration of saturation in these areas would also allow native sedges to better compete with the RCG population and likely prevent these areas from becoming homogeneous with RCG. Other weeds with drier life cycles would likely be eradicated from the berm area where wetter hydrology would promote wetland riparian species.

Soil Quality ______

Management Direction Applicable Standards and Guidelines from the Deschutes Forest Plan:

SL-1: Management activities will be prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity.

SL-5: The use of mechanical equipment in sensitive soil areas will be regulated to protect the soil resource. Existing Condition Soils within the meadow portion of the project area consist primarily of a mollic mineral A horizon approximately 0.5 to 1.5 ft in depth underlain by silty diatomaceous material up to 25 feet in depth. The total depth of sediments in the meadow was determined by geo-probing during October, 2009. Five of the six holes were greater than 25 ft in depth and included a Mazama ash tephra, mixed alluvium and highly weathered residdum underneath the silty diatomaceous material. All of the geoprobe holes were underlain by a layer of highly weathered bedrock material determined to be the Kiwa geologic unit due to the presence of large phenocrysts which are characteristic of this basalt. Actual bedrock was not encountered due to the refusal provided by the weathered residuum.

The existing hydrologic regime with the berm in place has reduced the annual organic input into the surface soil in portions of the meadow and allowed a granular structure to develop. The surface soil

145

within the inner 10 acre basin of the meadow remains highly organic due to a seasonal presence of groundwater at the surface into early summer.

The constructed berm consists primarily of soil material borrowed from the meadow immediately adjacent to the berm. This is evidenced by a ditch paralleling the berm on the meadow side. The material in the berm is highly consolidated and compacted from construction and use as a road for many years. The berm appears on the 1943 and 1953 aerial photos, between which there was an obvious upgrade and location change to portions of the berm.

Soils located where the primary access parking area would be improved and a CXT and ADA accessible parking would be constructed consist of a moderately deep upland soil comprised of Mazama ash over basaltic lava or a rhyolitic ash flow.

Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) There would be no direct effects to the soil resource as a result of the No Action alternative. Erosion of the existing riverbank would continue unabated and contribute soil to the river channel. The river has currently eroded halfway through the berm and would continue to do so under this alternative without direct intervention.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

This section includes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the soil resource as a result of the following actions:

• Re-establishment of up to three historic inlet/outlet channels between the river and meadow • Restoration of floodplain and bankfull bench elevations along the river • Placement of toe-wood, fill and sedge mats to construct new riverbank • Construction of instream large woody debris fish habitat structures • Re-vegetation of the riverbank and floodplain with native vegetation • Building an interpretive kiosk, boardwalk and surface trail segments of the Deschutes River Trail and Interpretive/Educational Loop trail • Improving/designating parking areas and installing a double CXT toilet

Riverbank restoration:

Riverbank restoration would directly impact the soil resource as a result of physical disturbance by heavy machinery operations used to: 1) move cut and fill material; 2) install toe-wood and log habitat structures; 3) re-establish inlet/outlet channels; and 4) transplant sedge mats and willow carcasses. Dump truck, excavator, front end loader and back hoe machinery would likely be used to complete these activities. The extent of this disturbance would be centered along a 0.3 mile (1,584 feet) stretch of the river, approximately 30 feet in width. Existing vegetation would be removed and bare mineral soil would be exposed over the majority of this area.

Approximately 19,300 square feet of the existing berm would be lowered approximately 2 feet in elevation, with the estimated 1,430 cubic yards of cut material utilized as fill for new riverbank or

146

elevated trail. Portions of the berm would be eliminated where boardwalk sections were constructed or re-established on the island and isthmus sections of river trail between the boardwalk connections. Approximately 29,000 square feet of existing river bank would be lowered approximately 1 foot in elevation, with the estimated 1,080 cubic yards of cut material utilized as fill for new riverbank. Approximately 8,400 square feet of new river bank would be constructed utilizing toe-wood and organic material to fill approximately 470 cubic yards. An estimated 20,000 square feet of sedge vegetation in the inner basin of the existing meadow would be dug with an end loader and transported to the riverbank restoration areas as transplants.

Impacts to the soil resource as a result of machinery traffic would include immediate but short term direct physical disturbances like compaction and rutting. Operations would occur during fall conditions likely to be relatively dry, which would reduce the rutting of the soil. Transport and installation of toe-wood and riverbank fill material would occur on or from the berm, where possible, reducing the amount of machine traffic over currently un-impacted ground. The overall effect to the soil resource would be positive, as the 19,300 sq feet of currently compacted berm would be gained as productive soil and approximately 29,000 square feet of existing river bank would be lowered and improved to a condition capable of supporting sedge and willow species. The estimated 20,000 square feet of inner basin area disturbed for sedge transplants is likely to recover quickly following the seasonal inundations subsequent to the restoration work.

Additional machinery traffic is likely to occur between the meadow and the riverbank in order to transport sedge mats collected from the meadow. The route of this traffic would occur primarily through areas that would be inundated following the completion of the project, allowing the ground and surface water fluctuations to relieve the compaction or rutting that was incurred. Additional restoration of these impacts would occur with the bucket of an excavator to break up the compacted temporary road. Lowering and de-compacting the existing dike would restore the hyporheic zone of the river along the interface with the slough basin. Reducing the soil strength and increasing the pore space of this zone would allow for annual re-charge and saturation of the initial floodplain and bank of the river at levels capable of supporting native riparian sedge and willow communities. These conditions would also allow water stored in the slough basin to slowly re-charge back to the river after irrigation flows lowered in the fall. Approximately 0.3 miles of riverbank and floodplain would be re-established with unconsolidated soil conditions at an elevation referenced from other slough and riverbanks along this reach of the river.

Re-establishment of the three inlet/outlet channels would disturb approximately 1,000 square feet of the soil resource where the channel was excavated between the river and the meadow area. Although this would be a net loss of existing surface soil, the soil remaining within the channels would be capable of supporting sedge and willow vegetation transplanted onto the site. Approximately 70 acres of historic emergent freshwater marsh habitat would be inundated as a result of reconnecting surface flows between the river and the slough basin. Surface soils that are developing drier, granular surface horizons under the current hydrology would become more organic as anaerobic conditions prevailed for nearly the entire growing season. Accumulations of diatoms are also likely to increase in the still water environment, allowing further deposition of silty material into the system.

Boardwalk and trail construction:

The boardwalk construction would incur direct effects to the soil resource as a result of machinery used to transport and install pilings and materials used for the structure. These effects would be minimized if the existing berm was still in place and utilized for machine traffic when the boardwalk is constructed. Approximately 600 feet of boardwalk would be constructed in the first phase to maintain the Deschutes River Trail connection across the meadow. Machinery used to drive the

147

pilings would traffic into the meadow on currently un-impacted ground, although direct effects would be minimized if operations occurred in August or later after the water table receded and the surface dried. The majority of area trafficked in the meadow for this purpose would be inundated following the completion of the project, allowing the ground and surface water fluctuations to relieve the compaction or rutting that was incurred.

Approximately 800 feet of surface trail would be constructed across the meadow to maintain the Deschutes River Trail connection across the meadow. Fill material would be added to these areas, dedicating them to trail tread and removing approximately 4,000 square feet of soil from productive ground. Machine traffic to move this material would also incur direct impacts to the soil resource, most of which would be directly underneath the final trail locations. Traffic across portions of the meadow that would be inundated with water would have the physical impacts ameliorated over time by the hydrologic cycles resulting from the restoration.

Approximately 1,155 feet of barrier free trail would be constructed on the surface to connect the CXT parking area with the Deschutes River Trail and loop section of the boardwalk. The trail would be comprised of ½ inch minus gravel material compacted to allow wheelchair access and would remove approximately 11,550 square feet of the soil resource out of production.

Parking access improvement:

The construction or improvement of two existing parking/pullout areas would directly affect the soil resource as a result of adding fill material on top of native surfaces or existing graveled areas dedicated to parking surfaces. The parallel parking area currently located along the FS road 41_600 at the northeastern portion of the meadow would be expanded to accommodate approximately five head- in parking. This would remove an estimated 500 square feet of the soil resource from a productive condition. The existing pull out areas located farther to the west along the 600 road would be improved with gravel but not expanded. The installation of a double CXT toilet would remove approximately 300 square feet from a productive condition. Additional day-use development in the area involving the placement of picnic tables would have minimal direct impacts the soil resource.

Cumulative Effects There are no anticipated cumulative effects to the soil resource under Alternative 2 as a result of this project because there are no other proposed ground disturbing projects that overlap the project area.

Alternative 3 Effects to the soil resource under Alternative 3 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 except for the amount of disturbance that may need to occur make the inlet/outlet channels effective at river discharge levels between 700 and 1,100 cfs. Connection of the inlet/outlet channels at an elevation of 4039.75 feet would move water into the existing borrow ditch along the berm structure, which is below the elevations of the historic channels as they lead into the basin. Lowering the elevation of these channels over an estimated lateral distance of up to 200 feet would be necessary to effectively distribute water along the surface to the inner basin of the meadow at a rate that would move the maximum amount of water before April 1st. This would disturb up to 1,000 cubic feet of the soil resource that is likely to recover quickly under the seasonal inundation. Cumulative Effects

148

There are no anticipated cumulative effects to the soil resource under Alternative 3 as a result of this project because there are no other proposed ground disturbing projects that overlap the project area..

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would directly disturb the soil resource to a slightly greater extent compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 with the addition of excavations to create open water habitat during lower river discharge periods. Approximately 500 ft2 of soil would be dug out to create up to five open water areas near the river and an additional 500 ft2 to create plugs within the artificial ditch leading to the sump area. The surface and portions of the subsurface soil would be removed from these areas and be converted to open water under all three Adaptive Management Option scenarios. The total acreage committed in the long term would be less than 1% of the project area.

Adaptive Management Option B would disturb an additional amount of the soil resource by constructing a berm between the inner basin and the northeastern portion of the project area to isolate potential losses in that area. The berm would be approximately 400 feet in length and approximately 10 feet in width and would be constructed from borrow material excavated in the basin or brought in from offsite. Although somewhat compacted the sides of this berm would function as productive soil, although not to the extent of an undisturbed profile. Willow species and facultative wetland graminoids are most likely to successfully establish on this area, especially on the inner basin side where wetter conditions would prevail. The top of the berm would support drier species of grass and forbs. The immediate areas from which the material was borrowed would also support vegetation since there would still be soil in place, albeit at a lower elevation with more saturated conditions. These areas would favor wetland obligate species.

The type and extent of disturbance of the soil resource would be slightly greater along the river for Adaptive Management Options A, B and C under Alternative 4 than that described for riverbank restoration under Alternative 2. The entire berm could be re-located farther from the river under all three options in order to support the Deschutes River trail and allow for sufficient restoration of immediate floodplain elevations and widths. Material would be transported via heavy machinery to the west side of the existing borrow ditch in order to re-establish a berm elevation high enough to support the trail when the river stage was high and the surrounding floodplain was inundated. This would result in a small increase in the size of the berm footprint in the basin due it’s slightly longer length around the bend of the river.

The net change in riverbank lowered in elevation and new bank constructed would be the same as under Alternative 2. The surface elevation beneath the existing berm footprint would be returned to levels capable of supporting obligate wetland species and would become productive wetland habitat. The elevation of the re-located berm would be similar to the existing berm elevation and would have a productive capacity slightly lower than the surrounding floodplain and basin. The side slopes of the berm would be capable of supporting willow species and other facultative wetland species while the top of the berm would support drier species.

Under Option A, three inlet/outlet channels would be connected through the berm, each with bridges to maintain passage on the Deschutes River trail. Construction of the channels would entail a similar amount of disturbance to the soil resource as described under Alternative 2. Option B would likely have two inlet/outlet channels connected and two bridges. There would be no connected inlet/outlet channels under Option C and no bridges.

149

Cumulative Effects There are no anticipated cumulative effects to the soil resource under Alternative 4 as a result of this project because there are no other proposed ground disturbing projects that overlap the project area.

Other Disclosures ______Analysis in this EA is tiered to the Deschutes Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Final Environmental Impact Statement. Implementation of any action alternative would not conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species At, or the National Historic Preservation Act. There are no potential or unusual expenditures of energy or adverse impacts to potential development of energy sources associated with the implementation of any of the alternatives.

Public Health and Safety No adverse effects to public health or safety have been identified. Implementation will involve operating restrictions to protect visitors and motorists during construction. Measures may include trail, road, or site closures, operating period limitations and temporary trail re- routes. The design and construction of trails and facilities follow management practices that provide for public and worker safety.

Wetlands and Floodplains Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 direct Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, both short-term and long-term adverse impacts associated with the modifications of floodplains and wetlands. The action alternatives have no specific actions that adversely affect wetlands and floodplains. Conversely, they contain actions to restore and improve wetland and floodplain conditions within the project area. Proposed activities are compliant with the orders and USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-3. Refer to discussions related to this topic in the soils, fisheries, and hydrology resource sections of the Environmental Consequences analysis for more information. Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 provides direction to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. The order includes direction to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Floodplains are defined by this order as, “. . . the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any one year.” Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. The Order includes direction to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Wetlands are defined by this order as, “. . . areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.” The project is consistent with these Executive Orders because it restores approximately 70 acres of

150

floodplains and wetlands, along with the restoration of 0.3 miles of streambank, or restores only the 0.3 miles of streambank.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Civil rights legislation directs an analysis of the proposed alternatives as they relate to specific subsets of the American population. The subsets of the general population include ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, elderly and low-income groups. None of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, or consumers differently than other groups. These groups may benefit from employment opportunities and by-products that proposed actions would provide. None of the alternatives adversely affect civil rights. All contracts that may be awarded as a result of implementation would meet equal employment opportunity requirements; but it is expected that most of the work involved with the action alternatives would be done by the Forest Service rather than through contracts. Under No Action, all current uses of the National Forest System lands would continue, including recreation, harvesting of non-timber forest products, special-use permits, subsistence uses, and spiritual/aesthetic uses. Effects to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups would not be disproportionate with other users of the National Forest System lands. No jobs would be created that might provide opportunities to minorities. Alternatives would have no impact on the contracting process or the USDA Small Business Administration program for reserving contracts for minority groups for tree planting, precommercial thinning, and road restoration. Employment and income would be available to all groups of people, subject to existing laws and regulations for set-asides, contract size, competition factors, skills and equipment, etc.

Prime Lands (Farm, Range, and Forest) The action alternative is consistent with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for the management of prime farmland. The project area does not contain any prime farm land or rangelands. Prime Forest Land, as defined in the memorandum, is not applicable to lands within the National Forest System.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Interdisciplinary Team Members ______Fisheries Analysis: Tom Walker, Fisheries Biologist, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Project Leader , Writer/Editor and Soil Resource Analysis: Peter Sussmann, Soil Scientist, Deschutes National Forest Scenery Analysis: Robin Gyorgyfalvy, Landscape Architect, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Botany Biological Evaluation and Noxious Weed Risk Assessment: Charmane Powers, Botanist, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District NEPA Oversight: Beth Peer, NEPA Coordinator, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Geology and Groundwater Analysis: Bart Wills, Forest Geologist, Deschutes National Forest Cultural Resources: Don Zettel, Archeologist, Sisters Ranger District; Erin Woodard, Bend Fort

151

Rock Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Report: Mark Lehner/Barbara Webb, Wildlife Biologists, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Engineering: Alan Buehrig, Project Engineer, Deschutes National Forest Hydrology and Water Quality: Rob Tanner, Assistant Forest Hydrologist, Deschutes National Forest

Agencies and Persons Consulted ______State Historic Preservation Office The Forest has completed necessary reporting for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) following guidelines in the Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon SHPO. A cultural resource inventory and report have been completed. This report was supplied to the SHPO in October 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conferencing occurred with the USFWS regarding the effects of the actions to Oregon spotted frog and Oregon spotted frog proposed critical habitat. A Biological Assessment was prepared and delivered to the USFWS. A Conference Opinion was issued by the USFWS on August 1, 2014. The Service’s Conference Opinion is that the project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Oregon spotted frog, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. The Conference Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement, with the amount of take varying between Options B and C. Reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations are included in the Conferencing Opinion. Public and Tribal Mailing List Approximately 130 individuals, agencies, and Tribes were given the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental assessment during the 30-day public comment period in August 2010. The mailing list was updated prior to the 45-day pre-decisional administrative review period (objection period) which began in January 2014. Mailing lists are located in the project file at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District.

References ______

BOR, 1954. Hydrologic Studies and Related Data, Upper Deschutes River Basin. United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation.

Gorman, Kyle. Oregon Water Resources Department Region Manager – South Central Region.

LaMarche, Jonathan. Oregon Water Resources Department Hydrologist – South Central Region.

152

OWRD, 2010. State of Oregon Water Resources Department letter of response to the U.S. Forest Service.

USDA, Forest Service, 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan.

USDA, Forest Service, 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment.

USDA, Forest Service, 1996. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Wateway Comprehensive Management Plan.

USDA, Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.

USDA, Forest Service. 2005b. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.

USDA, Forest Service, 2012. Invasive Plant Treatments Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests, Crooked River National Grassland.

153

APPENDICES Appendix A: Water Rights ______

No precedent for the need for a water right to restore wetland habitats is apparent in the judicial record. Region 6 Forest Service policy states that a state based water right should not be needed when restoring stream systems to natural (historic) conditions if there is no active means to control water and no increase in consumptive use of water over that naturally used by the system in its historic condition (USDA Forest Service, 2012). The Ryan Ranch project proposes to restore surface water access of the Deschutes River to a natural historic floodplain without the use of a man-made diversion structure. Oregon Revised Statutes (Chapter 537) require a water right to be obtained for actions that: o Affect waters of the State o Constitute a “Beneficial Use”, and o Utilize a man-made diversion structure. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Technical Operations Manual 03.02 includes land management activities such as the removal or breaching of dikes as activities that usually won’t meet the 3-permit need test. It also states that “it is important to note that injury to another user or resource is not a test of whether a water use permit is needed” (OWRD, 2008). OWRD initially interpreted that the Ryan Ranch Restoration project would not need a water right if “no means to control water” were included in the design (OWRD, 2010). However, OWRD has since re-interpreted the need for a water right for the project (OWRD, 2011). OWRD states in the 2011 letter that the project would interfere with the watermaster’s ability to deliver stored water to the water right holders who are entitled to receive it under OWRD’s current management of the Upper Deschutes for conveyance of stored waters allocated for irrigation use. Although there are no specific citations within the 2011 letter, the Deschutes watermaster did publicly cite Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 544.10 in a subsequent meeting as the authorized function of the Upper Deschutes River and ORS 545 as the statute that upholds the Irrigation Districts ability to deliver stored water to their constituents. The Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) claims that the movement of water from the river between April 1st and Oct 31st as a result of the Ryan Ranch project could include water stored in Wickiup reservoir under the Deschutes Reclamation Act (DBBC, 2010). Although distinguishing between stored and natural flow waters after they are co-mingled in the river is difficult, the Forest Service acknowledges that flows in the river above the pre-dam monthly mean of 1,400 cfs are the result of the inclusion of stored water. The North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) argue that the use of this stored water 3 for wetland enhancement is not currently authorized by Congress and could be a violation/breach of the terms of the contract between the two parties.

3 Although the NUID water contract with the BOR was originally authorized by Congress for irrigation purposes only, it was changed in 2008 to include up to ¼ the amount saved under the State Water Conservation program for use to supplement instream flows.

154

Appendix B: Summary List of Questions and Concerns

USFS and DBBC Summary list of Ryan Ranch Questions and Concerns

Berm construction • When? • By whom? • What improvements?

Berm Ownership and Authority • Bureau of Reclamation, Irrigation District or USFS records? • Current maintenance agreements? • Chain of Title? • Flood Easements? • How will maintenance be handled if the meadow is flooded and the berm need repair? • Who will be responsible for maintenance and how will responsibility for damages be assessed?

Three levee structures along the eastside of the river just above Benham Falls keep the river from accessing the Lava Butte flow and are still maintained by Central Oregon Irrigation District under a Special Use Maintenance Agreement with the Forest Service. The berm structure at Ryan Ranch is not included in this Maintenance Agreement.

• Has possible construction activity been discussed with DSL and Corp of Engineers regarding access and other activity in Wild and Scenic? • Has consultation with SHPO occurred regarding the berm? (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and ORS 358.653)

Water Rights • Is a Water Right needed for the project? • Does the project use a man-made diversion structure? • Does inundation of a wetland constitute a “Beneficial Use” under Oregon Administrative Rules? • Are the waters in questions “Waters of the State”? • NUID has a contract w/USBR for water under the Deschutes Project. Watering the meadow may impair NUID's rights to receive water under its storage contract with Reclamation resulting in tortuous interference with a contract. Has there been a legal review completed to address potential damages and claims resulting from the project? • NUID/USBR contract for water does not have “restoration” authority. • Is this a “consumptive” use of water? • Does the project impound water and require a Water storage permit or right?

155

Pre-dam river and slough conditions • What were “natural” pre-Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dam river flows at Ryan Ranch? • Original pre-dam flows should not reflect Crescent Lake. • What river water surface elevation, at a point adjacent to the ranch, corresponds to that pre dam “natural flow”? • What is the typical ground elevation on the Ranch meadow at a point approximately 100 feet west of the midpoint of the berm? • Did the Deschutes River naturally access the Ryan Ranch slough and are there any signs of pre-dam flooding shown by core samples? • Are there indications of natural inlet channels at the Ryan Ranch or are the channels man made by the original owners of Ryan Ranch? • If present, what were the natural elevations of the inlet channels at Ryan Ranch? • What months were the natural flows high enough to access the Ryan Ranch slough?

Water Loss from Ryan Ranch Slough • What is the geology and stratigraphy of the slough basin? • Is groundwater present under current conditions? • Does the river interact with the groundwater under current conditions? • Does the northwest portion of the meadow have anomalies to indicate higher water loss? • Is the depression in the northeastern portion a sinkhole or have anomalies to indicate higher water loss? • Does historic gage data indicate water loss from the system? • How much loss would occur from the slough basin if inundated? • Have any fault lines been identified in or around the meadow?

Rate, Volume, Timing and Length of Designed Inundation • At what elevation and corresponding river discharge would water enter the proposed inlet channels? • What is the rate of flow entering the basin through each channel? • What is the total above ground volume of the basin at a river discharge of 1,800 cfs? • What amount of water is to be used? • What is the total surface area and depth intended for the water? • Could the system be designed to utilize pre-irrigation flows (~1,100 cfs)? • How much of the basin could be filled with pre-irrigation season flows (river discharge of 1,100 cfs? • Can the system be shut off when irrigation season begins? • Are there other opportunities to leave the berm in place but make it more riparian friendly? • Are there design alternatives that can improve and increase wetlands with very little impact to district operations? • Have permits to alter the stream channel and impound water (channel alteration permit, 404 permit) been acquired?

156

Monitoring • How will water loss be measured in the system? • Who will be responsible for the measurement? • Is there a way to directly measure water loss through weirs or inlet channels? • Can the system be closed if excessive water loss occurs following implementation? • How can they ensure that any diverted water will not run off onto adjacent land areas not designated as part of this project? • Since any breach must have some means of control/measurement, what protection from abnormal river flows (like flood stage) are planned to avoid abnormal deterioration of the surrounding berm structures? • What effect will peak flows and ecological flows have on the proposed project?

Candidate or Listed Wildlife and Plant Species • Are any Candidate (Oregon Spotted Frog) or listed species present under current conditions? • Will any of these species be introduced? • Does the project actively create habitat for any of these species? • How would the colonization by a Candidate or Listed species potentially affect users with existing Water Rights? • How will fish screens be implemented? • What is being designed as far as gates, weirs & fish screens?

Deschutes Basin Board of Control Concerns with Water Loss and Project Design:

The Deschutes Basin Board of Control and the Arnold Irrigation District cited specific concerns in their comment letters in response to scoping of the Proposed Action. Effects associated with these concerns are addressed in the following summaries:

• Assurance that the water volume removed from the Deschutes River can be measured or reasonably and accurately determined to be no more than 127 acre feet during the April to October time frame.

The original 127 acre foot volume cited from the scoping letter was calculated as the above ground volume of the meadow/slough basin at a river elevation of 4,041.8 ft (approximate river elevation at a discharge level of 2,100 cfs measured at the Benham Falls gage). A recalculation of Lidar data for the site indicates an above ground volume of 195 acre feet at a river discharge of 2,100 cfs.

Analysis of the stratigraphy, geology and groundwater hydrology of the meadow indicates that the below ground volume of water necessary to re-charge the near surface pool to the surface is reduced substantially by the presence of a thick layer of uniform diatomaceous silts and a seasonal near surface pool of water charged by aerial precipitation and snowmelt. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that surface water flowing through the inlet/outlet channels will contribute primarily to filling the above ground volume of the meadow. However, there may be years in which the water table has not risen to the surface by the time surface water begins to flow in to the meadow and the total volume to be filled is greater than 195 acre feet.

157

• Remedy, to the fullest extent possible, any sinkholes or areas of localized water loss from within the project area.

The project intends to minimize potential water loss from the meadow to the most reasonable extent possible. Investigation of the potential for localized water losses from the meadow basin included the collection of six geo-probe cores to identify the stratigraphy and geology of sediments and bedrock across the meadow and the installation of groundwater monitoring wells to model the extent and duration of existing groundwater in the system. Analysis of sediments and underlying bedrock beneath the sump depression reveals no anomaly from the rest of the meadow. The project proposes to line the sump hole with bentonite clay and local diatomaceous material to reduce the open air volume and slow the movement of surface water down through the profile. Additional actions will include shaping berms in the constructed drainage ditch in order to minimize the transfer of surface water from the inner basin of the meadow toward this spot.

No definitive determination of potential water loss from the sump area can be made from data collected so far. It is unlikely that determinations can be accurately made until there is enough water in the system to reach this area. Monitoring of the hydrology of the meadow following restoration activities, including reading gages at Lava Island Falls and irrigation or power intake locations downstream, will determine whether the proposed actions have reduced stream flows in the Deschutes River to a measurable degree. Possible actions to remedy measurable loss include isolating identifiable areas of loss with berms or blocking some or all of the inlet/outlet channels.

• Inform the DBBC and the State Watermaster of the specific water elevation and equivalent river water flow rate necessary for water to enter through the inlets of the wetland project.

The project currently includes three inlet/outlet channels designed to re-connect surface water flow between the river and the meadow, each with a maximum volume of 2 cfs under Alternative 2 and 3 cfs under Alternative 3. The inlet elevations are designed at the 4,040.75 ft elevation or the equivalent of 1,100 cfs of river discharge at the Benham Falls gage in the Proposed Action and at the 4,039.75 ft elevation or the equivalent of 700 cfs of river discharge in Alternative 3.

The designed elevation and rate of flow under the Proposed Action replicates reference conditions of existing inlet/outlet channels located immediately across the river and is below the average unregulated mean annual flow of the Deschutes River at Benham Falls between 1925 and 1941. Based on flow data from 2000 to 2007, representing average winter snowpack/water years, the river rises to this elevation between April 4th and April 24th, with an average date of April 15th. Discharge data shows that this level can be reached by mid- March during wet years and can even be maintained throughout the winter during above average years.

The designed elevation under Alternative 3 is in response to the DBBCs concerns for the movement of irrigation water released from Wickiup Dam into the Ryan Ranch basin. It would allow an estimated 10% to 42% of the total basin volume to fill before April 15th of each year.

158

The Arnold Irrigation District letter dated March 22, 2010 included a list of information needed to review the viability of the project proposal, including: • A detailed topographic survey of the meadow, riverbank and levee A topographic survey has been completed for the eastern portion of the project area and is on file at the Deschutes Supervisor’s office. Lidar data is available for the entire project area and was used to calculate basin volumes at the various river discharge levels. • A flow versus stage relationship curve for the river at the meadow A rating curve for the Deschutes River at Ryan Ranch Meadow station #3138 is available from the Oregon Water Resources Department. Elevations for the stage heights have been converted using the survey data from the ground. • Details of the diversion structure No diversion structures are included in the long term project design. Water movement from the river would occur via re-constructed natural channels 1 foot wide and two or three feet high. Temporary diversion culverts would be installed for the Pilot Phase of Alternative 4. • Calculations for evaporation losses See the Effects to Surface water in the Hydrology section under Environmental Consequences on page 40. • Estimates of seepage losses • See the Effects to Ground water in the Geology section under Environmental Consequences beginning on page 29. • Survey control and benchmark information Control points and benchmarks are included in the topographic survey conducted during the spring of 2010. • Documented history of the levee construction • See discussion of the berm Construction in the Cultural Resources section under Environmental Consequences on pages 44 and 45. • Evidence of prior existence of ponds or channels in the meadow See the discussion in the Existing Condition section of Surface Water under the Hydrology section on pages 35 and 36.

159

Appendix C: Response to Comments

Ryan Ranch Comment Response Summary

Letter #1: Deschutes Basin Board of Control

Comment 1_1: The EA Fails to Adequately Address or Resolve Levee Ownership. 1_31: The Forest Service’s assertion of ownership and administrative authority of the levee structure ignores clear documentation in the administrative record that indicates otherwise. The Forest Service’s actions here directly undermine clear Congressional intent with respect to the operation, purpose, and integrity of the Deschutes Project.

Subject: Ownership of the berm structure

Response: Records searches by the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and local Irrigation Districts have been unable to produce any documentation of the original construction or ownership of the berm structure. The earliest evidence of the structure is shown as a road on a 1931 USGS quad of the area and a 1943 aerial photo confirms that a road/berm structure was in place by then. The Forest Service acquired title to Ryan Ranch in 1944 and held it when the BOR asserted that they “diked off the Ryan Ranch meadow from the river after irrigation releases for the North Unit caused complete flooding of this excellent natural meadow” sometime between 1943 and 1953 (BOR, 1954). Claims that the BOR has authority over this structure as a result of this improvement are not supported by annual project records for the Deschutes Reclamation Project which have no mention the construction or purpose of a structure at Ryan Ranch. Furthermore, no special use permit or maintenance agreement between BOR or any of the Irrigation Districts and the Forest Service exists for this structure.

The Forest Service has no intent to undermine the operation, purpose and integrity of the Deschutes Project by implementing the Ryan Ranch restoration project. Technical analysis has been conducted in order to inform the decision maker about whether the delivery of natural and stored water to downstream irrigation outlets would be maintained as a result of this project.

Site surveys show that the constructed height of the berm is in excess of that required to prevent the sheet flow of the higher summer discharges possible following the completion of Wickiup Dam from entering the slough basin. Maps and photo evidence appear to show that the improvement stabilized the initial structure and allowed for the continued presence of a road in this location.

Comment 1_2: Reclamation maintains an amendatory repayment contract with NUID. Efforts by the Forest Service to breach or otherwise modify the levee, which in turn affects irrigation water supply for NUID, would amount to a material interference with, and a frustration of the purpose of, Reclamation’s contract with NUID; Comment 1_33: The EA goes on to state that concerns of contract violations between the United States and North Unit Irrigation District are unfounded. There is no support or justification for this statement in the EA. As noted above, the comment in the EA regarding an amendment to the NUID contract has nothing to do with the concerns raised by the DBBC and NUID in their scoping comments; Comment 1_3: Any use of Deschutes Project water for permanent instream purposes, or more specifically, permanent wetland restoration purposes, is contrary to law and in violation of the congressionally stated project purposes.

160

Subject: NUID contract breach with Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); Legality of Deschutes Project water for wetland restoration

Response: Additional information and interpretation regarding the NUID Amended Authority contract was received from the BOR since the draft EA was released and has been incorporated into the final EA and Decision Notice. The Forest Service acknowledges that the NUID contract with BOR narrowly defines allowable uses of project water for irrigation purposes or, under recently amended authority, for instream uses with participation in Water Conservation Programs (BOR contract office; Patterson, personal communication). The Forest service acknowledges that the “use” of waters stored under the Deschutes Reclamation Act for anything other than irrigation purposes or instream purposes is not currently authorized by congress and could place NUID in breach of its’ contract with BOR. However, NUID could ask the BOR to submit an amendment to the contract for congressional approval that would broaden the use authority of stored water to include the restoration or maintenance of wildlife habitat.

OWRD interprets that the restoration proposed at Ryan Ranch would be a “beneficial use” under Oregon Water Law, which defines wetland enhancement or wildlife water use under this category (OAR 690-300-0010 - 61 & 62). Although there are numerous slough basins along the Upper Deschutes that are currently inundated by the river with “stored” water that have not been interpreted by the commenting parties as a breach of the NUID/BOR contract, the Forest Service is willing to partner an agreement that accounts for the water entering the Ryan Ranch basin during the Pilot Phase.

Determining the extent of “stored” versus “natural flow” waters that would access the Ryan Ranch floodplain is difficult in a co-mingled stream channel. The Forest Service hopes that conditions at Ryan Ranch following implementation of the project would be considered additive to other floodplain access along the Upper Deschutes, which is currently accounted for by OWRD as part of the natural losses in the delivery system. The EA includes technical analysis of the existing groundwater and stratigraphy of the Ryan Ranch floodplain slough basin that supports a case for limited losses as a result of the project. A pilot phase has been included in Alternative 4 to test whether inundation of the basin would measurably impede the delivery of stored water to the Irrigation Districts by the BOR or the local water master.

Comment 1_4: The EA Inadequately Addresses Impacts to the River Delivery System for Irrigation.

Subject: Adequacy of analysis Response: The EA assesses potential impacts to the river delivery system for irrigation by analyzing and quantifying the potential water losses under the possible alternatives (EA, pp. 23-28). Allowing the Deschutes river to access a natural slackwater slough basin floodplain could result in the movement of up to 6 cfs of water into the slough basin for approximately 4 months if no groundwater re-charge occurs (EA, p. 39). The draft EA expressed this potential loss as a percentage of the volume of water in the river delivery system to give context and scale to the analysis of effects (EA, p. 39). However, monitoring of the existing hydrology and stratigraphy in the basin indicates that the addition of surface water to the basin is likely to incur water losses at a rate less than that posited in the EA if no groundwater re-charge occurred. (see also response to comment 1_18).

The potential losses resulting from the Ryan Ranch project can also been compared to the existing losses associated with the river delivery system to give scale to the effects. The following narrative has been included in the EA: “The effects of losing less than 6 cfs from the surface waters of the river

161

channel under average summer irrigation flows between 1,800 and 2,100 cfs would alter the 7% loss assessed to Irrigation District supplies of stored water in the reservoirs as a result of natural losses between Benham Falls and Bend by less than 0.1%.” The potential losses resulting from this project can be further placed in context when compared to the acknowledged losses from the irrigation canals utilized by the Irrigation Districts to distribute allocated waters, which is estimated to be nearly 450,000 acre-feet annually.

Comment 1_4a: The Purpose and Need statement in the EA is clear that the Proposed Action needs to be implemented “in a manner that maintains the delivery of water to downstream water uses in the Deschutes Basin.” EA at p. 6. The EA does not supply sufficient information to demonstrate whether the Proposed Action (or Alternative 3) would fulfill the identified purpose and need.

Subject: Purpose and Need

Response: The EA includes technical analysis to determine the degree to which water entering the slough basin could be lost from the river and affect the delivery of water to downstream users in the Deschutes Basin (EA, pp. 29-34). This analysis demonstrates that over 99.9% of the river volume would remain in the channel below Ryan Ranch and continue toward the irrigation outlets even if no groundwater re-charge occurred within the slough basin (EA. p. 39). Analysis of the stratigraphy and groundwater hydrology of the basin indicate that re-charge of the existing water table is likely and that less than 0.1% of summertime flows would be affected by the Proposed Action. Changes in river flow of this amount is unlikely to affect the delivery of water to downstream users during the irrigation season

Comment 1_5: The wait-and-see approach of the Forest Service on this point is inconsistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and applicable regulations.

Subject: Adaptive Management and Monitoring

Response: Adaptive management is specifically defined under the Code of Federal Regulations as a valid component of Environmental Analysis (CFR 220.3), which allows for adjustment of actions during implementation (NEPA Handbook, 1909.15_10, p. 31). The EA proposes monitoring of the project following implementation to identify whether groundwater re-charge occurs within the basin and whether adaptive management may be necessary (EA, p. 42). Monitoring of the project following implementation was included in discussions with Irrigation District Managers at meetings prior to the release of the EA. A Pilot Phase that includes monitoring of groundwater during a test period of inundation, has been added to an Adaptive Management Alternative in the Final EA. This alternative includes three build out options based on the outcomes of the test monitoring that include potential closure or modification of the access channels and isolation of identifiable areas of loss within the basin in the event that water loss exceeded reasonable levels estimated by the technical analysis.

Comment 1_6: This proposed project would upset and undermine the basic underpinnings to how water is accounted for and allocated in the Deschutes River.

Subject: Deschutes River water allocations.

Response: Restoring the flow of surface water into a natural floodplain of the river would have no affect on the rules and regulations under which water in the Deschutes river is allocated by the Oregon Water Resources Department. The current system of accounting and allocating water in the

162

Deschutes River includes an accepted delivery loss between Benham Falls and Bend that reduces the amount of stored or natural water flow that each Irrigation District can divert through their outlets by 7%. The effects of potentially losing 6 cfs within a system that delivers an average of 1,800 to 2,100 cfs through the summer irrigation season would alter this charged loss by less than 0.1%, an amount that could be further minimized if it were dispersed between the multiple Irrigation Districts to which stored water is appropriated.

Comment 1_7: A Water Right is Legally Required for the Proposed Action, and the EA Fails to Assess the Impacts of such a Water Right. 1_32: Both alternatives 2 and 3 satisfy all of the criteria that require a water right in the state of Oregon. The EA acknowledges that the waters to be used to inundate the basin are waters of the State subject to appropriation and that the Forest Service intends to put the water to a beneficial use. The openings in the levee the Forest Service intends to construct constitute a diversion structure. A diversion dam is not a necessary component of a diversion structure. Lastly, the diversion will measurably affect the water rights of downstream users. The Forest Service interpretation of “measurably affect” is simply wrong, from both a legal and a policy perspective. The letter from Kyle Gorman addressed a hypothetical posed by the Forest Service and does not constitute a technical analysis of the specific project. The procedure for obtaining that technical analysis is to make proper application for a water right.

Subject: Water Rights

Response: The Ryan Ranch Restoration project EA and Decision Notice do not make a decision about whether a water right is needed for the project. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has issued opposing interpretations regarding the need for a water right for the implementation of this project (OWRD, 2010; OWRD, 2011). Narrative within the draft EA and design plans provided to OWRD by the Forest Service reference the technical and physical characteristics of the project, including the elevations of the re-connected floodplain channels and the lack of a man-made control structure, in order to facilitate an interpretation of the project regarding a water right (EA, p. 15). The latest OWRD interpretation references the flow of stored water into the slough basin and the assumed affect on the water rights of downstream users as reasoning for requiring a water right, without any reference to the physical nature of the design or the specific guidelines included in the Oregon Revised Statues for requiring a water right (ORS, Chapter 537).

The EA acknowledges that the high summertime flows in the Upper Deschutes are the result of releasing stored water during the summer months and that co-mingled waters would access the slough basin (EA, p. 40). However, the technical analysis (EA, p. 38-40) displays a high probability of groundwater re-charge in the system (see response to comment 1_18) that would result in a quantifiable amount of water lost from the river channel from filling the above ground volume of the slough basin (120 acre-feet) and subsequent evaporation and transpiration from the standing pool (190 acre-feet). Based on these numbers it is unlikely that the estimated losses resulting from this project would have measurable effects on the delivery of water to the Irrigation Districts outlets near Bend.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) require a water right to be obtained for actions that 1) Affect waters of the State; 2) Constitute a “Beneficial Use”, and 3) Utilize a man-made diversion structure, (ORS, Chapter 537). The Forest Service acknowledges that the Ryan Ranch Wetland Restoration project would affect waters of the State but does not interpret the re-connection of surface waters with a natural floodplain as constituting a “Beneficial Use” for “Wetland Enhancement” or “Wildlife Water” under OAR 690-300-0010 (61 & 62). However, the Forest Service acknowledges OWRDs request to account for the water entering the Ryan Ranch basin during the Pilot Phase as long as it can be

163

accomplished under a Limited License Agreement signed by the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC). The Forest Service supports a long term solution that does not require a water right held in the name of the federal government for a project that re-connects the river with a natural floodplain without the use of a man-made diversion structure.

Comment 1_8: The EA incorrectly characterizes the project and area as somehow functioning as a beneficial storage facility. This assertion is not substantiated anywhere in the EA, particularly when the alleged storage “benefit” is considered in relation to the irrigation delivery impacts. The inability of the project and site to serve as a beneficial storage facility is due to the hydrological seepage losses along with the evapotranspiration losses.

Subject: wetland “storage” definition and benefits

Response: The hydrologic function of slough wetlands includes the interaction of surface, ground and atmospheric water. The basin landform of most sloughs allows for the seasonal storage of surface water entering the slough, the dissipation of flood energies from surface sources and the improvement of water quality. The Ryan Ranch project would result in the re-charge of existing groundwater in the slough basin by surface water from the river and the return of approximately 35% of this water back to the river via surface and subsurface pathways when the river discharge lowered in the fall. The EA acknowledges that a portion of the water inundating the slough would interact with the atmosphere and be lost as a result of evapotranspiration (EA, p. 40). The estimated loss to the volume of river water through this process has been modified by input from the public (see response to Comment 1_27).

The fate of water remaining in the basin after the river discharge dropped is assumed to be isolated from the river channel and is accounted for as loss in the EA analysis. However, transpiration rates of the wetland vegetation and open evaporation rates are likely to have decreased substantially by October, leaving the majority of this water to remain as part of the water table. This is likely to result in a higher water table the following spring when the river re-accesses the floodplain and reduce the amount of surface water needed from the river to fill the basin the following year.

Comment 1_9: The EA statement dismisses the fundamental objection of the Commenting Parties, namely that the restoration project, as proposed, is not compatible with irrigation deliveries, and the Forest Service has made no effort to accommodate any of the irrigation districts’ concerns.

Subject: accommodation of Irrigation District concerns

Response: See response to Comment 1_6 for a discussion of the compatibility of the Ryan Ranch project with irrigation deliveries in the Deschutes River system.

The Forest Service has met with the Irrigation District Managers on multiple occasions to discuss the project and listen to concerns (EA, pp. 8-10). Issues and concerns raised by the Irrigation Districts were incorporated into the EA as Key Issues and Analysis issues (EA, pp. 10-12) and summarized within the document (EA, Appendix B). Alternative 3 was developed in direct response to the Irrigation Districts concerns with the Proposed Action regarding the timing of the initial movement of water into the slough basin with the beginning of releases for the irrigation season. The Forest Service received a positive response from the Irrigation Districts when the option to initiate the inflow of water earlier in the spring by lowering the elevation of the inlet channels was presented to them (USFS and Irrigation District Meeting notes, 3/2010). This option was incorporated into Alternative 3 but received negative reaction from the DBBC and BOR. In addition, requests from USFS for a direct

164

audience with the Irrigation District Boards to discuss the project and listen to concerns during the planning process were rejected by the Commenting Parties (Britton, e-mail correspondence).

Comment 1_10: The EA misconstrues the project as generating hydrological benefits for all purposes, and there simply is no such benefit for current irrigation uses. Additional comments and information below further support this point.

Subject: no benefits for irrigation uses

Response: There is no specific citation from the EA by the commenter to support the statement that the EA misconstrues the project in this manner. Potential benefits to current users of irrigation waters include a partnership of their districts with the USFS to restore riverbank conditions that are a direct result of the managed flows through Wickiup dam. This restoration would help maintain the delivery of water to their outlets in a manner that promotes the character and function of a Wild and Scenic river. Further benefits include the potential to contribute toward conservation education programs and interpretive signs at the site that would help promote the use of irrigation waters in the Deschutes Basin and their compatibility with the restoration of ecological processes and wetland function in the Upper Deschutes area.

Comment 1_11: The Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River (UDWSR) Management Plan identifies irrigation water as a primary resource, and recommends that federal actions cause no harm to the existing irrigation systems. The EA makes no mention of this fundamental premise of the UDWSR. 1_30: The ability of the Deschutes River to supply irrigation water to the agricultural industry of central Oregon was also recognized in the UDWSR as a primary resource. The effect of the proposed project should evaluate this effect also. Absent such analysis, the EA is incomplete and insufficient.

Subject: UDWSR Plan

Response: The commenter has not provided a specific citation from the UDWSR Plan that contains this language. The UDWSR Plan recognizes the importance of out of stream uses in context with the management of flows to protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable river values consistent with the Wild and Scenic River Act and applicable water laws (UDWSR, Summary-9). However, the UDWSR also recognizes the impacts that the current flow regime has on the Wild and Scenic Corridor when it states that “the most significant effects of flow regulation are that the regulated flows contribute to accelerated erosion, decrease in wildlife habitat, decrease in scenic quality during the winter, and degradation of fish habitat and corresponding decrease in fish populations” (UDWSR, C-11). The project proposes to reduce bank erosion exacerbated by regulated flows and return a confined stream channel to a condition that allows for the dissipation of energy onto a natural floodplain.

The EA acknowledges that irrigation waters are a component of the Upper Deschutes River system and proposes to implement a project “in a manner that maintains the delivery of water to downstream water uses in the Deschutes Basin” (EA, p. 6). The EA acknowledges a possible water loss scenario as a result of implementing the project at a rate of 6 cfs, but technical analysis supports a case for losses to be less than this amount (EA, p. 38-40). Either scenario would maintain a volume of stored and natural flows in the channel that is unlikely to cause measurable change to the amount of water delivered to downstream users.

Comment 1_12: The EA identifies Key Issue #1 as “The Proposed Action would inundate the slough with ‘stored’ versus ‘natural’ flow waters during the irrigation season.” The issue is

165

misstated. It should read: “The Proposed Action would inundate the slough with the natural flow water of the Deschutes River and stored water from Wickiup, Crane Prairie, and Crescent Lake reservoirs released for irrigation use.”

Subject: Edited correction

Response: This correction is acknowledged and has been updated in the EA and Decision Notice as “The Proposed Action would inundate the slough with co-mingled waters from the river that include natural flow water of the Deschutes River and stored water from Wickiup, Crane Prairie, and Crescent Lake reservoirs released for irrigation use.”

Comment 1_13: Key Issue #2 is misstated. The word “measurable” should be eliminated. As is stated later in the EA, the Forest Service has defined “measurable” to mean “over 105 cubic feet per second [cfs].” The Commenting Parties consider any reduction in their water supplies to be potentially damaging, not just losses greater than 105 cfs.

Subject: Edited correction

Response: The issue statement has been re-stated in the EA and Decision Notice per this comment. The definition of “measurable” in the EA was based on the ability of the current gaging system to measure water in the delivery system, not to discount the effect of quantities of water less than 105 cfs on the Commenting Parties.

Comment 1_14: The EA itself acknowledges that due to river gage accuracy levels, losses must exceed a +5% threshold in order for the expected losses to be detectable. Given the physical confines of the project and the time it would take to definitively prove such losses, we have no confidence that the Forest Service will be able to accurately or timely determine the losses in order to then determine whether there have been measurable effects. Comment 1_28: The EA proposes to consider mitigation only if the losses constitute a measurable reduction in the river flow. As previously noted in the EA, at a flow of 2100 cfs, a loss of anything less than 105 cfs would not be measurable, and thus apparently would not trigger any mitigation. 105 cfs is approximately the flow of Fall River. The EA should analyze, and the project should be modified by, measuring the losses at the points of diversion.

Subject: Measurability of the system

Response: The EA discusses the limitations of the existing gaging system within the river in order to show that the losses predicted as a result of the technical analysis would be undetectable by river gages. The Forest Service has added Alternative 4 to the analysis that includes a Pilot Phase to inundate the floodplain slough and monitor the water table in existing cased wells to determine the fate of the added water. Gages at the Irrigation District diversions would also be monitored to assess the system during the first year of inundation (USFS and Irrigation District Meeting notes, March 2010). However, OWRD has refused to depend solely on the existing gaging system at the Irrigation District points of diversion to measure harm to downstream users from the project.

The EA does not assume that mitigation would only be triggered by losses exceeding 105 cfs, rather, monitoring guidelines would be applied to adaptively manage the project during the irrigation season. Discussions between the USFS, OWRD and the Irrigation Districts include placing a staph gage in the inner basin to measure the volume of water passing through three culvert connections between the river and the basin as it accumulates. This would allow an agreed upon amount of water to enter the basin before the culvert connections are shut off and the fate of the accumulated water to be observed

166

over the subsequent months. The EA predicts annual losses of approximately 300 acre-feet of water based on technical analysis of the stratigraphy and current groundwater conditions that indicate that seepage losses are low and groundwater re-charge within the basin is likely (EA, pp. 21-30).

A rate of flow of 6 cfs into the slough basin was used for the analysis if no groundwater re-charge occurs which could result in the total movement of approximately 2,300 acre-feet of water into the slough basin during the irrigation season (EA, p. 50).

Comment 1_15: The EA includes a section entitled “Comparison of Alternatives.” The EA fails to include an analysis of the project in which a water right is obtained that would authorize the diversion of sufficient water to achieve the purposes of the project. Such an analysis should include consideration of different priority dates and potential effects on other water rights. Given the failure to analyze the effects of securing a water right, the EA is fundamentally flawed.

Subject: Adequacy of analysis (effects of authorized diversion of water if rights were obtained)

Response: The Ryan Ranch Restoration project EA and Decision Notice do not make a decision about whether a water right is needed for the project. The Forest Service acknowledges that it has received notice from the Oregon Water Resources Department since the release of the draft EA of their interpretation that a water right is necessary for the project (OWRD, 2011). The Forest Service is hesitant to set a precedent that a water right would be needed to inundate a natural floodplain slough of any river.

Discussions between the USFS, OWRD and the Irrigation Districts have led to a proposal for a limited license agreement for a measured quantity of stored water from Crane Prairie to enter the Ryan Ranch slough basin in order to test the assumptions used in the NEPA analysis for potential water loss as a result of the project. The limited license would be signed by the DBBC and does not commit the Forest Service into securing a water right for the project over the long term. Adaptive management is included in Alternative 4 in the case of unacceptable water loss in the system during the Pilot Phase.

Comment 1_16: Alternative 3 suggests that it will lessen the impact on the districts’ storage rights, but it only would accomplish this effect by increasing the impact on the districts’ natural flow rights. In short, taking into account the districts’ primary and supplemental water rights and water supplies, it becomes evident that this alternative is nonsensical. Comment 1_29: Alternative 3 should be rejected from further consideration since it only accentuates and increases the damage to existing water rights, including existing instream water rights.

Subject: viability of Alternative 3

Response: Alternative 3 was developed in response to assertions by the Irrigation District Managers that filling the slough basin as much as possible prior to the release of stored water in April would be favorable to their operations (USFS/Irrigation District Manager meeting, March 2010). Lowering the elevations of the floodplain channels would change the timing of water entering and exiting the basin and allow a portion of the slough basin to fill with early season natural flow water from the Little Deschutes and Fall River prior to the release of stored and natural flow water from Wickiup Dam for irrigation purposes (EA, p. 17). The development of Alternative 3 was intended to reduce the impact on stored water entering the slough basin each year, as well as reducing the amount of water entering the basin during the irrigation season.

167

Comment 1_17: further in-place hydraulic permeability tests of the weathered residuum are needed in order to actually quantify such transient flow characteristics.

Subject: Technical analysis

Response: Additional investigations at Ryan Ranch since the release of the 2010 EA include deeper drilling to install a series of cased monitoring wells in the sump and the inner basin. These wells have revealed a deeper and more complex stratigraphy than previously known, including a greater depth of sediments to bedrock and a clay layer that underlays what is now observed to be a year round water table within the inner basin. Two wells were installed on November 8th, 2011within the sump area to identify the depth and type of stratigraphy and monitor the dynamics of the groundwater in this area. The wells revealed nearly 20 feet of mixed silts and residuum above the bedrock. Seasonal water accumulated in both wells during the early spring of 2012 and 2013 before receding over subsequent months independently of levels throughout the rest of the basin. These wells will be in place to during the Pilot Phase of Alternative 4 to monitor the dynamics of groundwater in the sup area.

Comment 1_18: EA’s conclusions are inconclusive and need further investigation as to the true nature of the various possible preferential paths (deep percolation, sink holes, etc.) for surface waters to enter the deeper regional aquifer.

Subject: technical analysis

Response: The EA includes technical analysis of the stratigraphy and hydrology of the slough basin that supports conclusions that the likelihood of added surface water percolating to deeper regional aquifers as a preferential path is minimal in this system (EA, p. 29-31). Additional wells were drilled since the 2010 EA that have revealed a deeper stratigraphy of sediments and a year round water table in the inner basin that appeared to be an area of loss based on the 2010 potentiometric and shallower well data. Monitoring data indicates that a year round water table is perched on and within a thick layer of diatomaceous silts and is underlain by a clay layer in the subsurface of the inner basin (EA, p. 31). Recession of the water table evidenced in wells MW 50 A1, A2, B and C during the course of the summer correlates with the estimated evapotranspirative (ET) use on a wetland site of this type (EA, p. 38), indicating that the majority of this water was consumed through transpiration and evaporation. In addition, the hydrographs of wells below the clay layer were independent of the shallower wells and did not accumulate water during the monitoring period.

Analysis of the 2010 data from wells across the basin shows that subsurface flows from the hyporheic zone of the river and the Kiwa and unnamed subwatersheds entering from the west and northwest, respectively, contribute to groundwater in the basin and flow toward the inner basin of the slough through the layer of Mazama ash. The recession of water elevations in the wells accessing the confined aquifer even as the river remains elevated during the summer appears to be the result of the seasonal nature of the input from the upland subwatersheds which results in a reduction of lateral back pressure from the western portion of the basin as the summer progresses. The degree to which water flowing toward the inner basin of the slough represents movement of this water to saturated underlying bedrock or to a deeper regional aquifer appears to be lessened by the 2012 monitoring data of the nested wells.

The EA analysis acknowledges a possible connection between localized groundwater and deeper regional aquifers through a sump area in the northeastern portion of the meadow. However, additional monitoring since the release of the 2010 EA, combined with the underlying stratigraphy, past monitoring and photo evidence (EA, pp. 29-31), indicates that a limited amount of water contributes to this area and perches for a period of time when it does. The EA posits that the lack of groundwater

168

in this area during the 2010 monitoring period was a result of groundwater isolation from the rest of the meadow due to the anomalies of the underlying bedrock (EA, p. 29-30). The 2010 spring, summer and fall monitoring period recorded dry conditions in MW-1 while the majority of the basin held water for some or all of that period. Dry conditions would not likely be present during this period if the sump area acted as an active conduit of groundwater that was present in wells MW-4, 8, and 10 to deeper aquifers.

It is apparent from the 2011 monitoring observations that surface water from the larger inner basin was directly contributed to the sump area via the artificial ditch when the water table rose above an elevation of approximately 4038.6 feet as a result of snow melt and aerial precipitation on site. The continued presence of water in well MW-1 following the aerial precipitation and thaw through the spring of 2011 when no further contributions of surface water were being contributed indicates the 20 feet of mixed residuum and sediments does slow the downward percolation of water reaching this area. Continued monitoring of wells MW 53A and B during the Pilot Phase will help determine the degree and rate of downward movement to deeper aquifers in the sump area.

Comment 1_19: With greater surface water coverage area and additional hydraulic head, there definitely would be the potential for higher rates and amounts of infiltration and greater substratum permeability causing higher losses to the deeper regional aquifer; Comment 1_26: The EA’s conclusion that the inundation and saturation will create a seal on the basin floor greater to the current extent within this 70 acre basin is nothing more than speculation and has no basis in science. In fact, the additional hydraulic heads and increased areas of water surface contact within this 70 acre basin are far more likely to have an opposite effect, meaning even greater increases in evapotranspiration and seepage losses

Subject: technical analysis

Response: Monitoring evidence of groundwater in the basin shows that the surface water table and the confined subsurface aquifer within the slough basin are physically separate from each other. As a result, additional surface water from the river would contribute to the water table without a direct connection to the confined aquifer. The Forest Service acknowledges that an increase in the depth of above ground water within the slough basin would increase the seepage rate (v) through the diatomaceous silt layer on which it is perched, as defined by the equation v = K (H + d)/d; where K = the hydraulic conductivity; H = the height of the water; and d = the depth of the layer. The seepage rate would be calculated to change by approximately 15% for every 2 foot change in the height of the water (variable H) perched above a 10 foot layer of the silts.

It is questionable whether a 15% change in the seepage rate would allow the water table to connect with the confined aquifer beneath the layer of diatomaceous silts in the basin. A buffer of unsaturated silts five to ten feet in thickness has been observed in auger and bore holes between the two aquifers during the 2010 and 2011 monitoring periods. The hydraulic conductivity of the silts across this depth would accommodate a 15% increase in a calculated seepage rate without connecting to the confined aquifer even if the average eight foot drop of the water table in 2010 was used as a rate. Any changes in the seepage rate as a result of an increased head are likely to be offset to some degree by an increase in ET rates by vegetation responding to changes to the amount and duration of available water within the rooting zone through the summer.

It is acknowledged that the hydraulic conductivity of the different layers within the slough basin is independent of the level of saturation within the profile. Regardless, the saturation level of the sediments within and underneath the year round pool of subsurface groundwater across the majority of the basin is unlikely to change as a result of added surface water. It is doubtful that any additional

169

head contributed by the added surface water would overcome the low permeability of the clay layer and alter the lateral movement of water in this aquifer toward the inner basin. See comment 1_18 for discussion on the outcome of water within this aquifer.

Comment 1_20: These types of silts have a high range of variability and in-place hydraulic conductivity tests are needed to determine the possible degree of storage water losses into the deeper regional aquifer.

Subject: technical analysis

Response: The presence of standing water within the basin through early summer indicates a relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the underlying diatomaceous silt layer. A confined ring infiltration test conducted in the diatomaceous silt layer on 11/3/10 returned a K(c) value of 10-4 cm/sec for this material. This rate is within the range expected for a uniform silt fraction (Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967), but is faster than the hydraulic conductivity of some purer diatomaceous silt fractions reported in the literature, which can range as low as 10-6 cm/s due to an increase in the length of the drainage path from diagenetic bonding of the diatoms (Marsters and Christian, 1990). The infiltration rate measured for the diatomaceous silts in Ryan Ranch is likely due to the moderate percent fraction of diatoms observed under the microscope in this material (40 to 50%) compared to diatomaceous deposits measured in the literature cited.

The seasonal recession of the water table during the 2010 monitoring period was measured to be approximately equivalent to the estimated Evapotranspirative (ET) use on site, indicating that there was little percolation of this water down through the profile. The isolation of the water table from the confined aquifer under current conditions and the low likelihood of a connection being made despite increased seepage rates resulting from the increased pool height are discussed in response to comment 1_19. As a result, the addition of surface water from the river would contribute directly to the existing water table and likely raise it to fill the above ground volume of the basin and maintain it at this level throughout the irrigation season.

Marsters, J and Harold A. Christian, 1990. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF DIATOMACEOUS SEDIMENT FROM THE PERU CONTINENTAL MARGIN OBTAINED DURING ODP LEG 112. In: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Vol. 112, #42; Suess, E., von Huene, R., et al., 1990.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice: New York (Wiley)

Comment 1_21: In the second paragraph, the EA refers to groundwater moving laterally east to west toward the river. This statement is made repeatedly, but we believe that this should be west to east.

Subject: edited correction

Response: The statement in the EA referred to by this comment should read ‘”east to west away from the river” (emphasis added). Potentiometric pressures of wells groundwater in August of 2010 show the lateral movement of groundwater in the slough basin toward the inner basin of the slough from the river and the two watersheds that contribute groundwater to the area from the west (EA, p. 27).

170

Comment 1_22: The EA trivializes the loss of 6 cfs of water. This is not a trivial amount. The Deschutes River Conservancy spends between $100,000 to $300,000 per cfs to put water back into the river system. Irrigators pay $1,000 to $4000 per acre for water rights, and one cfs can irrigate 60 to 80 acres. Each acre foot of water that moves through the system during the irrigation season is accounted for and charged to the various appropriators. To impose an additional loss of water on districts that developed their water rights under the existing conditions would be an intentional interference with their water rights. Comment 1_25: This statement trivializes what would be quantifiable losses of irrigation storage water. Under this worst case scenario (which could be possibly higher than 6 cfs), there would be a loss of over 2,000 acre feet of stored water for the period between April 1 and October 1 of each year (183 days), which has a definite quantifiable value for stored irrigation water being delivered for agriculture purposes. Does the Forest Service actually believe that the Swalley canal is trivial, since it only diverts less than 5% of the total river flow? The Forest Service is ignoring cumulative effects.

Subject: statements of opinion with comparison context; Cumulative Effects

Response: The Forest Service does not intend to trivialize potential losses of water as a result of this project. The EA includes analysis of a possible scenario under which no groundwater re-charge occurred and a maximum of 6 cfs entered the slough basin unimpeded throughout the irrigation season under the Proposed Action (EA, p. 39). The river discharge during the 2010 irrigation season was above 1,800 cfs for a period between May 5th and September 9th, or 128 days, with lower flows for the remaining 55 days. The quantifiable amount of water that would be lost under this scenario would be approximately 2,000 acre-feet of stored and natural water, which was not summarized as an acre-foot volume in the draft EA. This remains a small fraction of the estimated 450,000 acre feet of water lost from the Irrigation Districts canal delivery system.

Analysis of the stratigraphy and groundwater hydrology in the slough basin indicates that the most likely scenario of total losses would be less than 300 acre-feet of water as a result of the project (EA, pp. 38-40). The EA identifies the primary loss as evaporation from open water areas created by the project. Although additional losses from Evapotranspiration (ET) and seepage are accounted for in this total, the analysis shows that existing seasonal groundwater in the system currently supports ET use on site and approximately 35% of surface water filling the above ground volume of the basin would return directly back to the river channel in early October. In addition, the remaining 65% water filling the above ground volume of the basin included in this total is likely to contribute to the unconfined water table within the diatomaceous silts and reduce the amount of re-charge necessary the fill the basin the following spring (see response to comment 1_8).

The EA provides a context for the potential losses under both scenarios as a fraction of the 966,000 acre feet that annually passes through the Benham Falls gage (BOR, Water availability calculation for the Deschutes) and the 43 to 65% of the acre-feet diverted for irrigation purposes that is annually lost through the irrigation canals (Gorman, personal communication). The EA also displays potential losses as less than 0.1% of the amount of water lost naturally in the system between Benham Falls and Bend that is currently charged to storage totals in the reservoirs at a 7% rate, which is evenly distributed between the Irrigation Districts that have stored water allocated to them. It is unlikely that the cumulative effect of this amount would affect the delivery of water to downstream users, or would be a significant reduction in the amount of storage for each Irrigation District. Comment 1_23: It is doubtful that the sump [in the northeastern portion of the basin] was located randomly. The sinuosity of the channel leading to the sump suggests that water disappeared at this point under pre- Deschutes Project conditions; i.e., there was a natural

171

sinkhole at this site. While it is possible that the sinkhole reconnected with the river at some short distance, it is also quite possible that the sinkhole connects to the regional water table, as most areas north of Benham Falls do.

Subject: technical analysis

Response: A sinkhole generally refers to an active subsidence in the earth and is most commonly associated with limestone bedrock. The localized increase in the depth to bedrock in the depression located in the northeastern portion of the basin is better described as a collapsed pressure ridge or a surface depression in the original flow of the underlying bedrock (EA, p. 29-30). Drill and well logs show a significant increase to bedrock beneath this depression filled by 20 feet of disturbed silts and weathered residuum. Although this area was excavated and disturbed with explosives by the Forest Service prior to 1954 in an apparent attempt to increase the size and rate of flow beneath the surface, observations confirmed negligible success (BOR, 1954). Historic photo evidence in three different calendar years shows that water does pond above the surface of the sump area during the summer under high water conditions (EA, p. 30). Survey elevations and pre-dam hydrographs indicate that the river likely accessed the sinuous channel leading to the low lying area prior to the management of the Upper Deschutes River. There is also anecdotal evidence from the 1843 Fremont expedition that water from a small channel ‘disappeared’ beneath the surface into a funnel shaped hole during December of that year. The knowledge that there is nearly 20 feet of sediments in which this water could be pooling without leading directly to deeper aquifers could explain this ‘disappearance’. The EA acknowledges a conservatively high flow rate of water to deeper subsurface aquifers of 1/5 cfs via this area is possible, but not probable as a result of the analysis. See also response to Comment 1_18.

Comment 1_24: The holes dug through the dike into the three channels are man-made diversion structures. The fact that the Forest Service intends to dig them deep enough to divert water without the need for a dam in the river does not make these a natural-occurring phenomenon. The intent is more than clear: the Forest Service intends to divert up to 9 cfs from the river, either natural flow or stored water.

Subject: man-made versus natural channels

Response: The proposed action intends to re-connect a natural floodplain slough through channels that existed at Ryan Ranch prior to the construction of the berm (EA, pp. 35-36). The design and elevation of these channels are referenced to existing channels that allow water to enter and inundate other slough wetlands along the Upper Deschutes (EA, p. 15). The long term design does not include a man-made means to control water in these channels, but would include a weir, headgate and culverts during the Pilot Phase.

Comment 1_27: …using a proven realistic scientific factor of 1.2, it would indicate a total average annual rate of ET of 3-1/2 feet per year during the relevant period. This would amount to an approximate total of 250 acre-feet in annual ET from the wetland vegetation, instead of the 170 acre-feet as asserted in the EA.

Subject: technical analysis

Response: The Ryan Ranch slough basin would likely be a combination of open water and emergent marsh vegetation when inundated. Digital elevation data indicates that approximately 20 out of the 70

172

acres within the Ryan Ranch basin would hold water deep enough to retard vegetation when inundated. The Forest Service maintains that an accurate estimation of water loss from a wetland via evaporative and transpirative mechanisms needs to distinguish between rates associated with open water and emergent wetland vegetation on site.

Potential losses during the April through October inundation period have been re-calculated using accepted evaporation loss rates for small open waters (3.66 feet) and evapotranspiration rates for wetland marsh emergent vegetation (2.41 feet) referenced to similar environments in the Klamath Basin (USGS, 2006-5036; Burt and Freeman, 2003). These rates would produce a total loss of 75 acre-feet from the 20 acres of open water and 120 acre-feet from the 50 acres of emergent marsh vegetation for a total of approximately 195 acre-feet lost through ET mechanisms during the irrigation season when applied to Ryan Ranch.

Letter #2: DogPAC

Comment 2_1: a foreseeable outcome of the current action alternatives is further restriction of dog owner access. Comment 2_2: the EA does not contain alternatives that, through their features, will sustain access. Comment 2_3: describe how dog owner access will be affected relative to the “no action” alternative for alternatives 2 and 3. Comment 2_15: the DNF’s belief that off-leash and other trail users cannot co-exist likely will lead to additional access restrictions when mixing the DRT’s current users with the additional users expected under alternatives 2 and 3.

Response: Neither of the action alternatives includes measures to restrict dog owner access in the Ryan Ranch area, although current seasonal leash laws would remain in effect. Off leash access to the river would be encouraged to occur at the river fetch area designed into the project but would not be limited to this area. There is likely to be a temporary, short term restriction during and following the restoration activities for all users along the restored riverbank to allow transplanted vegetation to establish without being trampled. Access for all users, including dogs and their owners is expected to be sustained within the project area following the implementation of this project.

Comment 2_4: [restoration] can be achieved with or without the boardwalk, so alternatives with and without the boardwalk should be presented.

Response: The proposed restoration activities would remove the berm on which the Deschutes River Trail is located and necessitate the re-location of the trail in order to maintain continued access through the area. Alternative re-routes included the originally scoped location around the outer boundary of the meadow without a boardwalk. This location was considered but eliminated due to conflicts with elk habitat on the western edge of the project area and archeological sites. Utilizing the existing berm structure with small bridges over the re-connected inlet channels was also considered but dropped due to compromises with restoring the riverbank to an elevation capable of supporting sedges intended to maintain the riverbank in a sustainable condition. The EA includes analysis of a No Action alternative under which no construction activities would occur.

Comment 2_5: The EA currently notes that dog owner access will be “reduced” by implementation of alternatives 2 or 3

173

Response: There are no administrative decisions included in the EA to prevent access for any user group along this section of the river, although there will likely be a temporary, short term closure to all users along the riverbank to allow the transplanted vegetation to become established without continuous disturbance from human traffic. The statement in the EA that access would be “reduced” was meant to display the potential for the restored hydrologic and vegetative conditions along the riverbank to impact a user’s desire and ability to access the river without encountering an impediment such as willow barriers or wet ground.

Comment 2_6: The EA should include a description of how the BFR will cover maintenance costs into the future – if for no other reason than the (negative) effect of these costs on other recreation opportunities.

Response: Maintenance costs of the recreational infrastructure proposed for this project are included in the analysis of materials being considered for the boardwalk, including artificial fiber materials that have greater longevity and durability than traditional wood products. A Community Review Panel of local engineers, recreationists, and interested parties in both the private and public sectors has been solicited by the USFS to review the material and maintenance costs associated with the boardwalk options compiled by the project engineer. Funding for future maintenance costs are likely to come from internal USFS appropriations and/or external grants.

Comment 2_7: one foreseeable outcome of alternatives 2 and 3 is expanded leash restrictions – including an effort by the DNF to apply the restrictions to times of year when they do not currently apply.

Response: The comment is not supported in any way by fact. The EA acknowledges that the timing and amount of use in the area is likely to change as a result of the project, although limited parking would maintain use levels within accepted levels defined by the UDWSR Comprehensive Management Plan (EA, p. 49). The decision does not include changes to the leash restrictions currently applied to the area, nor are there any reasons to indicate the proposed actions would affect leash restrictions. Changes to this policy are outside the scope of this decision.

Comment 2_8: Current compliance with DNF leash regulations is incomplete because…the DNF does not allow alternatives (off leash access to other directly accessible portions of the DRT in summer). Efforts to further restrict off-leash access likely will exacerbate this situation.

Response: The comment is not relevant to the Ryan Ranch project as the Proposed Action does not specifically change off-leash activities along the Deschutes River Trail or any portion of the forest. Off leash access to sections of the Deschutes River Trail is available during the summer, including north of the Meadow Camp the climbing area to the Entrada Lodge and south of the Benham Falls trailhead to Sunriver. Comment 2_9: If an access ramp is to be implemented, it should meet the criteria of sufficient river depth for dogs to safely jump into the river.

Response: The river fetch ramp proposed for the project is designed to access the river at a point where sufficient water depths would be provided for this activity. The design of this ramp will be shared with local user groups for input prior to construction.

Comment 2_10: the current alternatives would greatly change, reduce and likely eliminate river fetch opportunities at one of the best sites along the whole DRT. This should be noted in the EA.

174

Response: The project proposes to harden and designate a preferred river fetch site in order to replace the current primary access point at the apex of the river (location approximately N 43°57’20.9” W121°25’04.8”) that has become a primary nick point along the meadow. None of the alternatives included in the EA propose long term administrative closures to human or dog traffic for river fetch along the river following the restoration of the riverbank and construction of the boardwalk. However, vegetative and hydrologic conditions following the implementation of this project may impact a human user’s desire to walk between the Deschutes River trail and the river when the water levels in the wetland are high. Users would still be able to play river fetch with their dogs using a combination of the boardwalk, raised trail and river bank.

Comment 2_11: it is reasonable to assume that the referenced signage will include instructions to leash dogs based on the forest’s apparent belief that the environmental impact of off-leash dogs is unacceptable.

Response: The referenced signage is intended to educate the public about existing leash regulations in a manner that encourage compliance. Determining the environmental impact of off-leash dogs is outside the scope of this project.

Comment 2_12: EA page 7 “the current location of the DRT has created a recreational use pattern….to which the local elk herd has become habituated” contradicts the statement on EA page 59 that there are negative impacts that need to be reduced.

Response: The timing and duration of elk presence in Ryan Ranch meadow are likely affected by the pattern of use associated with the current location of the Deschutes River Trail. The project proposes to re-locate the trail in close proximity and parallel to the existing trail to minimize changes in the location and pattern of use by humans and dogs, thereby minimizing effects on the elk herd additional to what may be already occurring in the area.

Comment 2_13: The project will introduce substantial new use to [the northeastern portion of the meadow]

Response: A user trail currently exists on the toeslope along the western boundary of this lobe of the meadow, indicating consistent existing recreational use in this area. The project proposes to utilize the general location of this user trail for an ADA accessible surface trail leading out to the proposed connector section of boardwalk across this lobe of the meadow. Both the surface trail and boardwalk section would focus use on an interpretive trail within a corridor that is currently used for cross country travel and that is at least ¼ mile away from the inner basin and western edge of the meadow where daytime use of the meadow by elk generally occurs.

Comment 2_14: The BFR has not provided a scientific justification for the policies that reduce summer recreation access in other areas of the KEA – due to its asserted impact on wildlife – while increasing it at Ryan Ranch under alternatives 2 and 3 of the EA. The BFR should include in the EA the relevant science showing that the new use at Ryan Ranch will not lead to unacceptable impact on wildlife there, despite it leading to (asserted) unacceptable impact elsewhere.

Response: Effects of the proposed activities on the elk herd would likely be reduced as a result of focusing probable increases in non-motorized use within an existing use corridor. The primary user groups increasing in size, namely those with accessibility restrictions and school children, are unlikely to visit the site during the winter months when use is most likely to affect elk within the KEA. Although comparing the potential effects of this project with those asserted for projects

175

elsewhere in the KEA is outside the scope of this project, motorized traffic on user created double track roads has been implemented to minimize disturbance to the elk herd within the KEA. Non- motorized use has not been restricted elsewhere in the KEA.

Letter #3: Chris Denton

Comment 3_1: Please document the need for outdoor education classrooms within the Deschutes National Forest.

Response: The Forest Service mission statement includes advocating a conservation ethic through educational opportunities for youth, elderly and the disadvantaged (see Mission Statement at http://www.fs.fed.us/fsjobs/forestservice/mission.html).

Conservation education is an integral tool for promoting the goals of the Forest Service mission statement, including engaging urban America with Forest Service programs (USDA FS-879, 2007). The Deschutes National Forest utilizes outdoor classrooms to implement Forest Service education programs and currently provides this opportunity to local schools via the Wolftree program on the Sisters Ranger District. However, this site is an hour drive from the communities of Bend and Redmond and requires the commitment of a full day of classroom time for students in the Bend/La Pine school district to participate. The Ryan Ranch project offers an opportunity to provide a unique outdoor education classroom to promote a conservation ethic to local students within a fifteen minute drive of Bend to allow classes from Bend and La Pine to participate in half-day field trips that minimize the cost and impacts on the school day. A partnership with the Bend/LaPine school district has been successfully implemented to utilize grants received by the Forest Service for outdoor educational programs at sites like Ryan Ranch.

Comment 3_2: How is the anticipated increase in usage consistent with the primary purpose of restoring the "ecological function" of this historic slough habitat along the Deschutes River AND the management guidelines of areas designated as Key Elk Area?

Response: The Ryan Ranch EA addresses Deschutes Forest Plan guidelines for recreational management within the Ryan Ranch KEA (EA, p. 58). Effects from the anticipated increase in use at the site have been minimized on the KEA by focusing continued access for users of the Deschutes River Trail along a re-route that utilizes the existing trail corridor away from potential calving areas and guidelines for the Ryan Ranch KEA specifically state that public use will not be restricted within the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River corridor during the calving season. The primary increase in use anticipated as a result of this project is by school groups and those with accessibility restrictions, both of which are unlikely to occur during the winter months when snow is present and elk are more susceptible to the effects of disturbance. The construction of an ADA accessible boardwalk and surface trail is intended to focus the anticipated increase in use away from calving areas and on surfaces resistant to degradation that would allow the ecology of the site to function as a slough habitat.

Comment 3_3: explain how the picture on the cover of the Draft EA is compliant with the VQO of Retention, which implies that projects and management activities are intended to blend with the natural environment. How does your depiction NOT create additional lines inconsistent with the natural setting?

176

Response: The existing landscape character of the open space provided by the Ryan Ranch area is predominantly horizontal in nature. The proposed boardwalk has been designed without railings to maintain a low profile and a curved design to minimize the rigidity of the layout in order to maintain this character. The boardwalk will be set back farther from the river and at a lower elevation than the existing berm structure, and the strategic location of willow species transplanted between the river and the boardwalk is intended to break up the horizontal site line of the boardwalk from the river.

Comment 3_4: Please document the impacts to current off-leash dog regulations and include any anticipated impacts to off-leash dog users in the context of dispersed recreation.

Response: See response to Comments 2_1, 2_7, 2_8 and 2_11.

Comment 3_5: Why are there no alternatives to the boardwalk proposal that may also provide the same, or similar, educational benefit to students while still complying with ADA rules/regulations?

Response: See response to Comment 2_4.

Letter #4: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Comment 4_1: The Service supports the Proposed Action alternative in the EA and commends the Forest for proposing to implement an important wetlands restoration project in the Upper Deschutes River Basin.

Response: The Forest Service acknowledges the support for the Ryan Ranch wetland restoration project and the benefits to a range of wildlife species, including the Oregon Spotted Frog.

Letter#5: COTA

Comment: 5_1: COTA would like to suggest that proposed ruling that would restrict mountain bike “riding” along a portion of the new ADA Boardwalk next to the river [EA pages 18 and 59] be removed from the Preferred Alternative or that an additional trail segment be constructed specifically designated for “through traffic”.

Response: Language suggesting that mountain bikers walk their bikes through the newly constructed portions of the Deschutes River Trail (DRT) has been removed from the EA. The Decision Notice would not restrict any existing use of the DRT.

Letter #6: Bureau of Reclamation

Comment: 6_1: The Preferred Alternative creates specific removal points…that can be controlled and physically altered. This is not a natural flow of the river periodically, but a man- induced overflow at specific river flows that will occur in most years. The preferred Alternative describes a project that fits the Water Master’s description of a diversion requiring a water right permit…The Forest Service must obtain a water right for the project as described

Subject: Water Rights

177

Response: See response to Comment 1_7.

Comment 6_2: The Preferred Alternative does not fit any of the statutory exemptions. See ORS 537.10 et seq.

Subject: Water Rights

Response: The project is not seeking any statutory exemptions. However, the Forest Service does not interpret the flow of surface water from the river onto a natural floodplain as a diversion of water for a “beneficial” use under Oregon Water law. The Forest Service believes that any losses associated with re-connecting surface water from the river with the Ryan Ranch floodplain could be additive to the natural losses from the river between Benham Falls and Bend that are currently calculated by OWRD with minimal additional burden to the Irrigation Districts.

Comment 6_3: …asserting that the “natural condition” of the project area over a century ago is the baseline as to whether there is man-made control of the diversion of river water…is an erroneous presumption and a misapplication of the State Water Code.

Subject: Man-made control of the diversion of river water

Response: The Ryan Ranch project would restore river access to a natural floodplain that is currently blocked by a man-made berm. The re-connection of surface water between the river and the slough basin floodplain would re-define historic channels that existed prior to the construction of the berm. The proposed location, size and elevation of these channels have been referenced to observed conditions at Ryan Ranch and other sloughs that are seasonally inundated by surface waters along this reach of the river (EA, pp. 15, 35). The inundation of the re-connected floodplain channels would occur at river discharge levels above 1,100 cfs without the installation or use of a structural “means to control water” included in the design.

Comment 6_4: …the purpose of the project is a wetland restoration of an area not currently used for that purpose and which requires the use of the waters of the state… this type of new use fits the requirements for an instream water right and requires a permit. See ORS 537.332 et seq.

Subject: Water Rights Response: The purpose of the project is the restoration of a natural floodplain process between the Deschutes River and a natural floodplain slough basin (EA, p. 7). The restoration returns historic river access to the floodplain at the Ryan Ranch and replicates the unabated floodplain access of waters of the state to numerous other sloughs along this reach of the Upper Deschutes. Flows into these other sloughs have not been permitted by OWRD with an instream water right but any losses resulting from this access are likely accounted for as part of the 7% natural loss of the delivery system charged to storage. The Forest Service questions whether the restoration of the hydrologic function of a natural floodplain of a river constitutes a “beneficial use”. The natural floodplain slough basin meets the definition of “instream” under Oregon Water Laws (ORS 537.332 (1) and water entering the basin would qualify as “instream flow” (ORS 537.332 (2)). Under this interpretation, the Forest Service could request instream flows to support the public use created by the project as defined under ORS 537.332 (5b). However, the long term project design does not include a “means to control water” to allow surface water from the river to access the slough basin floodplain and the technical analysis of the slough basin shows a low probability for water loss as a result of the project. Definitions for ORS 537.332

178

(1) "In-stream" means within the natural stream channel or lake bed or place where water naturally flows or occurs. (2) "In-stream flow" means the minimum quantity of water necessary to support the public use requested by an agency. (3) "In-stream water right" means a water right held in trust by the Water Resources Department for the benefit of the people of the State of Oregon to maintain water in-stream for public use. An instream water right does not require a diversion or any other means of physical control over the water. (4) "Public benefit" means a benefit that accrues to the public at large rather than to a person, a small group of persons or to a private enterprise. (5) "Public use" includes but is not limited to: (a) Recreation; (b) Conservation, maintenance and enhancement of aquatic and fish life, wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat and any other ecological values; (c) Pollution abatement; or (d) Navigation. [1987 c.859 §2; 1995 c.416 §32] Definition 537.334 Findings The people of the State of Oregon find and declare that: (1) Public uses are beneficial uses. (2) The recognition of an in-stream water right under ORS 537.336 (State agencies authorized to request in-stream water rights) to 537.348 (Purchase, lease or gift of water right for conversion to instream water right) shall not diminish the public’s rights in the ownership and control of the waters of this state or the public trust therein. The establishment of an in-stream water right under the provisions of ORS 537.332 (Definitions for ORS 537.332 to 537.360) to 537.360 (Relationship between application for in-stream water right and application for certain hydroelectric permits) shall not take away or impair any permitted, certificated or decreed right to any waters or to the use of any waters vested prior to the date the in-stream water right is established pursuant to the provisions of ORS 537.332 (Definitions for ORS 537.332 to 537.360) to 537.360 (Relationship between application for in-stream water right and application for certain hydroelectric permits). [1987 c.859 §3]

Comment 6_5: failure to apply for a water right denies existing water right holders due process under state law to have the impairment evaluated by the Oregon Department of Water Resources.

Subject: review of potential impairment

Response: OWRD has evaluated the potential impairment that the Proposed Action might incur on existing water rights holders under the latest interpretation that the Ryan Ranch project requires a water right (OWRD, 2011). The state now assumes that the flow of stored water into the slough basin would likely affect the ability of the water master to deliver water downstream and would result in harm to the rights of water users with existing water rights. However, OWRD has not provided concrete evidence to support this conclusion and the Forest Service has contacted OWRD for a more detailed reasoning for the need for a water right with mixed results.

The Forest Service attempted to negotiate with the Irrigation Districts for water to back a limited license agreement with OWRD to test the NEPA analysis and assumptions for the fate of water entering the Ryan Ranch slough basin but received a letter from the DBBC stating that ‘none of the irrigations districts have excess water at this time to provide to the [Ryan Ranch] project…” and

179

suggested that the Forest Service pursue securing water from non-district water right holders (DBBC, 2011). The Forest Service considered accounting for water to conduct this test from storage in Crane Prairie reservoir that is available under an agreement with OWRD in excess water years but recanted due to fears of setting a restoration precedent requiring a water right for floodplain restoration. The DBBC is now working with the Forest Service and OWRD to sign and back a limited license agreement to account for water entering the Ryan Ranch basin as part of a Pilot Phase under Alternative 4.

Comment 6_6: The use of water as described in the EA may impair the valid water rights appropriated for the Deschutes Project…Promises of future evaluation do not support a fully informed decision which is required now.

Subject: Adaptive Management

Response: The EA includes monitoring and technical analysis of the hydrologic and stratigraphic characteristics of the slough basin to help support a fully informed decision. Monitoring of groundwater wells has been conducted to identify the presence and dynamics of groundwater in the system under existing conditions and the calculation of above and below ground storage volumes of the basin, as well as estimates of seepage and evapotranspiration rates, are included in the analysis. Additional monitoring and drilling since the draft EA was released has provided more information about the dynamics of groundwater.

Overall, the analysis of the technical information collected describes a system with a low likelihood for the loss of appropriated water following inundation. However, the EA includes an Adaptive Management strategy to evaluate the groundwater and surface water dynamics associated with inundating the Ryan Ranch slough basin (see response to Comment 1_5 concerning adaptive management strategies for future evaluation). Additional monitoring wells have been installed into the bedrock in order to assess the deeper groundwater dynamics of the system under existing conditions and following inundation. Alternative 4 includes adaptive management options for the project to close the re-connected surface channels between the river and the slough basin if unacceptable water loss occurred during the Pilot Phase.

Comment 6_7: …stored water is the basis for the contract between the North Unit Irrigation District and Reclamation and cannot be used for any purpose outside the subject contract. Ryan Ranch is not a water conservation project…., therefore, this water cannot be used for instream purposes.

Subject: NUID contract

Response: See response to comment 1_7. The Forest Service acknowledges that the NUID contract with BOR narrowly defines the authorized uses of project water to be limited to irrigation purposes or, under recently amended authority in 2008, for instream uses with participation in Water Conservation Programs. However, co-mingled conditions below the dam make it difficult to distinguish between stored and natural water in the channel and the assumption by the BOR and OWRD that all water in the river becomes “project water” during irrigation season does not appear to be written into the Deschutes Reclamation Act or the NUID contract.

The Forest Service acknowledges that high summer irrigation flows include stored water and that river discharges above 1,500 cfs are in excess of natural flow levels prior to the construction of the

180

Wickiup and Crane Prairie dams. These conditions currently allow “stored” water to enter other slough basins along the Upper Deschutes and the outlets of irrigation districts with only natural flow water rights without dissension from NUID or BOR. However, NUID could request the BOR to apply for authority from congress to amend the contract to include the inundation of a natural floodplain at Ryan Ranch as an accepted “use” of project water.

Comment 6_8: the EA does not represent full disclosure of the fate of water to be diverted

Subject: Effects Analysis

Response: Additional monitoring and analysis had been added to the record since the draft EA was released for comment that furthers the disclosure of the fate of water inundating the Ryan Ranch floodplain (see Groundwater and Surface water effects analysis, EA Chapter 3). See also response to Comments 1_18, 1_19 and 6_6. The Forest Service contests that restoring river access to a natural floodplain constitutes a “diversion” under Oregon Water law.

Comment 6_9: the EA does not allow a fully informed decision because the studies regarding the fate of the water use and its impact on existing water rights is admittedly ongoing and incomplete.

Subject: Incomplete analysis

Response: Additional monitoring and analysis has been added to the record since the 2010 EA was released for comment to help make an informed decision on the project (see Groundwater and Surface water effects analysis, EA Chapter 3). See responses to Comments 1_18, 1_19, 1_22 and 6_6.

Comment 6_10: …whether or not Alternative 2 or 3 would fulfill the purpose of “maintaining the delivery of water to downstream uses in the Deschutes Basin” remains conjecture.

Subject: Purpose and Need

Response: See response to Comment 1_4a

Comment 6_11: The EA is insufficient to support a FONSI based on insufficient information as to the potential water loss, in addition to the known increase in consumptive use and evaporation as discussed above….

Subject: Finding of FONSI regarding water loss

Response: Additional monitoring and analysis had been added to the record since the EA was released for comment to provide context for the decision maker to assess the significance of the potential water loss as a result of this project. The potential loss from open water evaporation and evapotranspiration from emergent marsh vegetation if the basin fills and holds water throughout the summer irrigation season has been updated based on available science from reference wetlands in the Klamath Basin. See also responses to Comments 1_18, 1_19 and 1_27 for a display of the technical analysis regarding potential water loss in the slough basin.

A FONSI regarding water loss as a result of the Proposed Action is based on the analysis of the losses that are likely to occur as a relative percentage of the volume of flow in the river, which corresponds to the total amount delivered to users with existing water rights, and the current 7% delivery loss

181

incurred to stored water in Crane Prairie and Wickiup reservoirs (EA, p. 39-40). Even the potential loss of 6 cfs if no groundwater re-charge were to occur is <0.1% of the total flow and well below the accepted measurement accuracy of the current delivery system. As a result, this amount is unlikely to alter the delivery loss between Benham Falls and Bend.

Comment 6_12: Can the measured decline of the near surface and/or subsurface groundwater tables….be used to estimate the volume of infiltration losses from the basin prior to implementation of the project?

Response: The measured decline of the near surface groundwater table is likely a combination of losses through transpiration, evaporation and seepage. The total decline in the elevation of the near surface water table during the 2010 monitoring period is approximate to the ET rate of the site under current conditions and indicates low rates of seepage through the diatomaceous substrate (see also response to comment 1_19). A single ring infiltration test conducted 11/3/10 on the diatomaceous silt layer at a depth of 1.5 feet from the surface measured a rate of 10-4 cm/sec, which is low enough to minimize downward movement of water and comparable to seepage rates measured in other silt sized fractions that can perch water (Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967).

Analysis of the stratigraphy and character of the basin sediments indicates that the subsurface groundwater is perched on a dense layer of residuum and mixed alluvium that is resistant to seepage losses. Geoprobe drilling encountered refusal in this layer at nearly 5,000 pounds per square inch of force. The presence of potentiometric pressures in monitoring wells shows that the subsurface groundwater is contained as a confined aquifer that is isolated from the near surface water table. In addition, a measured gradient of potentiometric pressures across the basin indicates that water in this confined aquifer flows laterally toward the center of the basin.

The lateral flow of water in this aquifer toward the inner basin appears to show the ability of the underlying weathered residuum to retard water from infiltrating downward. Because inputs to this aquifer come in varying amounts and durations from multiple sources, including subsurface flows from contributing upland watersheds and the hyporheic zone of the river, the measured decline of the potentiometric pressures in all wells as the summer progresses, despite the river remaining at a steady level, cannot be directly converted to an infiltration loss rate. Rather, it appears that a decreasing input of subsurface groundwater from the upland watersheds as the summer progresses reduces groundwater pressure from the western half of the basin and allows more water under pressure in the eastern half of the basin from the constant level of the river to flow laterally to the center, thereby lowering the upward pressure measured in the wells. Deeper wells drilled into the bedrock beneath the inner basin have been installed to determine the fate of water in the center of the Ryan Ranch basin.

Indication of relatively low infiltration characteristics of the weathered residuum can also be drawn from additional monitoring conducted in November of 2010 and during the winter thaw and spring of 2011 of water in a monitoring well beneath the sump area in the northeastern portion of the meadow. Despite hatched openings in the well pipe and very dry conditions in the subsurface, water added directly into Monitoring Well #1 on 11/3/10 perched in the well pipe above the weathered residuum and lowered at a relatively low rate. Water measured in the same well during the spring of 2011 remained perched for an extended period of time before slowly dissipating.

Comment 6_13: Does the Forest Service have authority from Congress to construct or deconstruct water control features such as minor dams and levees, and to impound water behind man-made structures?

182

Response: The Forest Service is not proposing to construct a water control feature or impound water behind a man-made structure. The Forest Service has searched for and requested ownership or construction records of the berm feature proposed for removal at Ryan Ranch from the BOR and local Irrigation Districts. To date, no records associated with the Columbia Southern Reclamation or the Deschutes Reclamation projects have been located by the BOR or Irrigation Districts specific to the berm structure at Ryan Ranch. There are also no records of a special use maintenance agreement for the berm structure between the Irrigation Districts and the Forest Service to indicate formal acknowledgement of the berm as a water control structure. As the current title holder of the property, the Forest Service claims administrative authority of said structure absent such records or agreements, and requires no Congressional authority to modify or remove the structure.

Congress has also designated the Forest Service with a responsibility to protect and enhance the free flow characteristics and other Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the Upper Deschutes River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Ryan Ranch project proposes to allow the Deschutes River to access a natural floodplain that has been blocked by a man-made berm for at least 80 years. The designed restoration activities would re-define historic floodplain channels to allow the river to access the slough basin without a man-made structure to impound or control the flow of water when completed.

Comment 6_14: Will any party, public or private, receive a financial benefit from the Ryan Ranch Meadow project?

Response: Contractors hired to complete the restoration work and construct recreational facilities would receive compensation for their work from an open bid process. None of the alternatives analyzed under the Ryan Ranch EA would create a recreational fee-site from which the Forest Service would financially benefit.

Comment 6_15: What appropriation of Federal funds is the Forest Service using to carry out the Ryan Ranch project?

Response: The Forest Service has appropriated Soil and Water Program funds to complete the NEPA planning, portions of the restoration project design and portions of the restoration implementation oversight. Additional appropriations include regional Forest Service funds earmarked under Construction and Maintenance of Legacy Roads and Trails for the design and construction of a portion of the boardwalk facility.

Comment 6_16: What other public or private funding is being used or will be used by the Forest Service to carry out the Ryan Ranch project?

Response: Additional funding received, or pending, to carry out the Ryan Ranch project include grants from Deschutes County Title II Secure School Funding Act, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Federal Scenic Byways, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.

Comment 6_17: Has the Forest Service consulted with SHPO about the eligibility of the Ryan Ranch meadow for registration in the National Historic Register?

Response: The Forest Service has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on the Ryan Ranch project under the 106 review process. The Ryan Ranch meadow site is not recommended for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.

183

Comment 6_18: What is the scientific basis for asserting that impounding water in the Ryan Ranch Meadow will eliminate Reed Canary Grass? What water depth and duration has been proven effective in killing grass?

Response: The Proposed Action does not impound water, but rather proposes to allow the Deschutes River to access a natural floodplain comprised of a floodplain slough basin. The EA makes no claim asserting that inundating the slough basin would eliminate Reed canary grass. The EA states that “breaching the berm and allowing the river water to inundate the basin is likely to reduce the occurrence of the most problematic invasive plant, Reed canary grass” (EA, p. 90). Research indicates that the inundation of Reed canary grass throughout the growing season at depths greater than 2 feet are effective in reducing or even eliminating this species (Nature Conservancy). The EA states that “populations are expected to be eradicated within the inner basin of the meadow where flooding depths would be 2 to 4’ through the growing season” but also acknowledges that “populations near the edges of the meadow may be enhanced where inundation may be less than 1’ and/or the plants may not be flooded above that depth through the growing season…the rate, level, and duration of inundation is likely to eradicate these species in some areas and enhance them in others” (EA, p. 90). Monitoring of the Reed canary grass population is included in the EA “to help determine the trend for this species and possibly influence more active management of the population in the future” (EA, p. 90).

Letter #7: Carol Rosendahl

Comment 7_1: The EA doesn’t give any information on what the pre-dam flows were and how you might have determined this

Response: The EA references the natural average monthly discharge levels of the Deschutes River prior to regulation by the Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams from data compiled by Cameron and Major, 1987 (EA, p. 35). Data shows that average monthly discharges in the Deschutes River at Benham Falls were at or above 1,500 cfs for all months of the year.

Comment 7_2: Is there information refuting the possibility that these “natural” channels were caused by varying levels of post-dam river flows?

Response: The sinuous nature of the channel in the northeastern portion of the meadow indicates energy provided by flowing water. Surveys of the site and other slough channels along the Upper Deschutes show that pre-dam flows were high enough to inundate the sloughs and an anecdotal description of Ryan Ranch meadow from the 1843 Fremont expedition indicates a flow of water into a funnel shaped area in the meadow. The physical nature of the channels indicates that simple channel plugs could easily have been placed by earlier landowners to create grazeable pasture in the basin prior to dam construction.

The construction of Crane Prairie dam allowed for potentially higher flows in the river during the summer irrigation season which may have necessitated a larger structure to keep water in the river from entering the Ryan Ranch slough basin. The construction of the berm appears likely to have coincided with the Columbia Southern Reclamation Project, which authorized improvements along the river associated with the construction of the Crane Prairie dam in 1922 (EA, pp. 44-45), and post- dam river flows are unlikely to have accessed the channels in this area. Post-Wickiup dam river flows have never been able to reach the slough basin unimpeded due to the improvement of the berm structure in 1947 (EA, p. 45).

184

Comment 7_3: It’s not clear whether or not the 1915 survey showing a corral on the south side of the meadow pre-dates the levy placement.

Response: Interpretation of the 1915 Gould survey and the 1931 USGS quad indicates that the corral pre-dates the berm structure. Ryan Ranch was homesteaded under the original Homestead Act in 1894 and the corral site is likely where the original ranch and outbuildings were located. The use of swamp symbols and the title of “The Tules” for the Ryan Ranch area on the 1915 Gould survey indicate that the basin was wetter than under post-dam and berm conditions on the Deschutes. Observations of the inlet/outlet channel geometries and elevations in Ryan Ranch and other sloughs along the Upper Deschutes shows that keeping water out of these basins to increase the grazing value would have only required blocking the inlet channels prior to regulated flows, a scale of which could readily have been completed by the hand of the landowner. The berm appears to have created a road structure that allowed additional access to the corral area while also reinforcing the closures of the channels to keep higher flows of the river after the construction of the original Crane Prairie dam out of the basin.

Comment 7_4: The evidence is sketchy at best, that historically enough water ever left the river and inundated the basin for long enough to create an emergent marsh habitat.

Response: The hydrograph summary by Cameron and Major of flows in the Deschutes River prior to the construction of Wickiup and Crane Prairie dams shows that average monthly flows equaled or exceeded 1,500 cfs every month of the year (EA, p. 35). Survey elevations of the blocked channels at Ryan Ranch and existing inlet/outlet channels of other sloughs along the Upper Deschutes allow water to access these areas at a river discharge of 1,100 cfs. These correlations show that surface water from the river did access the Ryan Ranch slough basin on a regular basis prior to the regulation of flow in the river.

Technical analysis of the stratigraphy of the sediments in the basin indicate that additional surface water contributions to the basin would increase the duration of the existing seasonal water table through the growing season. The extended presence of available water in this basin would have provided the hydrology to support obligate wetland species in an emergent marsh habitat. In addition, the presence of ten to fifteen feet of diatomaceous silts in the meadow basin above a Mazama ash layer deposited 7,600 years ago indicates the presence of open waters conducive to the growth of diatoms for an extended period of time. Accumulated depths in the Ryan Ranch basin correlate with the depths of lacustrine deposits in Todd and Tumalo lakes above the same Mazama ash layer (Colin Long).

Comment 7_5: The risk that heavy equipment will increase invasive species effectively eliminates one of your rationales for the project.

Response: The EA acknowledges that invasive plants have the potential to be disturbed as a result of lowering the berm and restoring the riverbank. The project intends to minimize the effects of this disturbance by avoiding known populations to the extent possible, disposing of uprooted plants from existing populations of invasive species that cannot be avoided off-site, and actively transplanting native sedges and willows in disturbed areas. In addition, heavy equipment used for the restoration and recreational improvement activities would be washed and cleaned prior to entering the project area in order to minimize the risk of introducing new invasive species to the site (EA, p. 19).

Comment 7_6: The project, in the short term, through construction activities could dump more sediment in the river than accumulative bank erosion ever has.

185

Response: The EA acknowledges that disturbance during the restoration activities would increase the risk of short term sediment input to the stream channel (EA, p. 37). This risk would be minimized by timing mechanized activities in late October when the elevation of the river is low and by transplanting sedge mats and plugs on the majority of disturbed ground along the riverbank to provide immediate cover. The timing would provide the transplants approximately six months to begin to establish roots systems and stabilize the riverbank before the river rises in late March for the subsequent irrigation season.

Comment 7_7: You’ve basically manufactured a need that doesn’t exist for the area. You then use that as a justification for construction, development and disruption of the landscape to accommodate the supposed resultant increased use.

Response: The EA identifies a need to address the ongoing erosion of the riverbank and berm in the Ryan Ranch area (EA, pp. 6-7). The Ryan Ranch project proposes to stabilize riverbank conditions by lowering of the berm structure to restore the historic physical and hydrologic conditions that supported nearly 70 acres of wetland habitat in the slough basin. The loss of the berm and change in hydrology precipitate the need to re-locate or re-route the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), which was driven by internal and external issues to be maintained within the existing use corridor to minimize the effects to elk within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (KEA). A boardwalk structure allows the DRT to cross the Ryan Ranch slough within 50 ft of the current location following the wetland restoration and provides the potential to expand use of the area to members of the public with accessibility limitations. The opportunity to utilize the boardwalk facilities for an interpretive loop trail for public education was recognized as a unique opportunity to provide an outdoor educational and interpretive experience for the public at a restored wetland that is convenient and accessible to local schools and the public. See also response to Comment 3_1.

Comment 7_8: the EA downplays the projects far reaching negative impacts on recreational opportunities and quality of recreational experience for current users, on scenic qualities and on wildlife.

Response: The EA acknowledges effects to the recreational experience and opportunities as a result of this project (EA, p. 71). See also Response to Comment 9_1. The EA also addresses the effects to scenic qualities regarding the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic Corridor and includes design criteria to minimize these effects (EA, pp. 69-70). The EA also addresses effects to a myriad of wildlife species (EA, pp. 78-86).

Comment 7_9: The project would “slightly change the trail experience for hikers, runner and bikers…” This statement reflects a complete misunderstanding of what the trail experience is for users in the area. Ryan Ranch Meadow is a destination area for most users….

Response: See also Response to Comment 9_1. A discussion of impacts to the experience for users visiting the site as a destination has been expanded to address this comment in more detail. The Dillon Falls parking area provides a portal access area to the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The current parking access is used by recreationists who, among other things, travel the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), visit Dillon Falls and Ryan Ranch meadow as a destination, and boat on the Deschutes river. The existing number of trail encounters is limited to some degree under the Wild and Scenic River Plan by the number of designated parking spots at this and other portals within a reasonable distance. The Ryan Ranch project would designate five additional parking sites at the portal under guidelines of the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Management Plan which may affect the experience of users visiting the site as a destination and/or using the DRT by increasing the

186

number of other users they encounter during a given visit. Although the project would alter the existing ecological appearance of the Ryan Ranch site and add some recreational infrastructure, it does not propose to restrict any recreational use to create a less desirable destination. On the contrary, it proposes to provide additional access for members of the public with accessibility limitations that currently are unlikely to be able to experience the site as a destination.

Comment 7_10: Although fisherman are a recreational user ignored by the EA, this stretch of river along the meadow is a choice fishing destination

Response: Restoration of the riverbank and riparian vegetation are intended to improve fish habitat along a stretch of river that has been identified as lacking in functional fish habitat (EA, p. 51). Anglers would continue to have access along the entire riverbank of Ryan Ranch following the implementation of this project.

Comment 7_11: questions arise as to how the “hundred large pieces of wood” placed in the river will impede [paddling] activities

Response: The large pieces of wood proposed as part of the restoration work will be placed below high waterline as toewood to provide a foundation for the construction of new riverbank. Although some of the wood may slightly overhang off of the initial shelf to provide overhanging fish cover, boaters would not be impeded from safely paddling up or downriver along this reach following the implementation of this project.

Comment 7_12: according to the EA, the only river access after completion of the project will be one “small, hardened dog ramp”. The project will completely eliminate bank fishing along this stretch.

Response: The project would neither restrict river access for river fetch to only the hardened ramp nor eliminate bank fishing along this reach of the river. The hardened dog ramp is a component of the project intended to provide continued river fetch and human access to the river in a place less conducive to contributing to bank erosion than current use that occurs at the apex of the river bend (see also response to comment 2_10). Changes to the hydrology and the increase of riparian vegetation along the riverbank may affect the preference of users not wishing get their feet wet in order to fish, walk or play fetch with their dog in the river. Comment 7_13: What part of these proposed changes to the current recreational experience remotely resembles the EA assertion of a “slightly changed trail experience for current users”.

Response: See Response to Comments 7_ 9 and 9_1.

Comment 7_14: The project degrades the scenic qualities of the area by grading and fill activities including excavating a hole in the NE meadow to be lined with clay. The EA gives no prediction as to how long the area may take to re-vegetate, naturalize and heal.

Response: The restoration activities will temporarily alter the scenic quality of the area due to the lowering and re-grading of the riverbank and berm structure. The project proposes to actively transplant riparian vegetation to shorten the exposure of bare soil and the rhizomatous roots of the sedges intended for the site are vigorous colonizers that can expand and fortify their hold on the site within the first couple of growing seasons. The hole that currently exists in the northeastern portion of the meadow would not be further excavated, but would be lined with clay and filled in slightly with local material to slow the percolation of surface water in this area.

187

Comment 7_15: What is the short term impact on the area’s elk with an immediate 50 -100% forage range reduction when the project-created slough fills with water? The EA ignores significant stress on the elk herd.

Response: The EA displays the extent to which the Ryan Ranch slough basin would be inundated with water and estimates that approximately 20 out of the 70 acres of the basin would be inundated at a depth deep enough to retard vegetation and maintain open water. The remaining 50 acres would support carex and other emergent vegetation palatable to elk that would continue to provide forage during the year, as well as additional winter browse and cover provided by willow species that are limited in number and size by the current hydrology on site. Elk utilize other slough wetland habitats along the Deschutes River and an increase in water within the Ryan Ranch basin would not likely cause a high degree of stress to them.

Comment 7_16: What is the long term effect on elk herds in the area with their ultimate range permanently reduced by 50%?

Response: The comment misrepresents the extent of range reduction resulting from this project. The elk herd in the area does not graze exclusively at Ryan Ranch and the KEA is much larger in size than the Ryan Ranch basin. Elk utilize other slough and wetland areas along this reach of the Upper Deschutes and are likely to readily adjust to the new hydrology and vegetative composition of the existing slough basin. Although a portion of the basin is likely to lose a surface vegetative component where deep open water is maintained, the majority of the wetland would support species palatable for elk, including willow and sedges. The increase in willow composition across the basin would also provide more cover and winter browse in the area favorable to elk. In addition, the production of aspen, grasses and forbs on the 40 to 50 acres of bottomland to the west of the basin area would also increase as a result of the higher groundwater and enhance grazing and bedding opportunities within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk area. As a result, the effects on the elk herd in the long term are likely to be beneficial as a result of this project.

Comment 7_17: The project also impacts other wildlife in the area as the prey base of larger carnivores will disappear when flooding the meadow eliminates all the small mammals they depend upon for food.

Response: The EA acknowledges that the project will impact the vole/shrew/gopher prey base in the area for generalist species like coyotes and red tailed hawks (EA, p.83). These species are readily adaptable to change and do not depend entirely on this prey source.

Comment 7_18: Contrary to the EA’s claim, there is significant impact to recreational, scenic and wildlife resources in conjunction with the proposed project.

Response: The commenter does not provide any scientific basis for asserting significant impacts on these resources as a result of this project. See response to comment 7_8.

Comment 7_19: The resources in place are valuable enough that levy repair should be considered with rock as has been done in several nearby downstream areas.

Response: The rock used to solidify the bank along the downstream portion of the river along Ryan Ranch meadow does not meet the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to promote and enhance the free flow characteristics of the river (UDWSR, p. 5). The size and height of the piled rock also

188

does not mimic naturally occurring features in the area. The project proposes to restore the physical and hydrologic condition of the riverbank and inundate a natural floodplain to support native sedges and willows capable of reducing erosion and limiting the need for continued maintenance. The EA acknowledges that current conditions do provide social and environmental values that will be affected by the project.

Letter #8: Laurie Bynum

Comment 8_1: The project is entitled Ryan Ranch Meadow, although users have always known it as Dillon Meadow.

Response: USGS and USFS maps label the area as Ryan Ranch meadow, which was used as the title of the project. The EA includes a location map and references to Dillon Falls to help identify the project area (EA, p. 5).

Comment 8_2: Meadows like this are rare indeed….

Response: The Ryan Ranch area is an artificially created and maintained wet meadow with inherent wildlife and recreational values. The project proposes to restore this area to a natural wetland habitat with greater species diversity, provide new recreational access for physically challenged members of the community while maintaining existing recreational access to the river and the Deschutes River trail for valued activities such as hiking, fishing, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, photography, and biking.

Comment 8_3: Don’t turn [this area] into a breeding ground for mosquitoes.

Response: The final EA and Decision Notice acknowledge changes in the amount of mosquito habitat as a result of this project. Habitat for mosquito larvae and adults is currently present as a result of a seasonal pool of water above the surface into early summer on approximately 15 acres of the inner basin and through the summer on approximately 2 acres adjacent to the river immediately south of the Dillon Falls boat ramp. The project would inundate approximately 55 additional acres with water depths varying from one inch to five feet capable of supporting the larval cycle of mosquitoes.

Mosquitoes are present in the Ryan Ranch area under existing conditions and current users acknowledge that “there are times that this section of trail is totally unuseable by humans unless…drenched in Deet…and using a beekeepers veil” (Buck, Ryan Ranch public comment letter #9). Although an increase in the extent of standing water would likely result in a subsequent increase in the number of mosquitoes produced in the area, the restored wetland habitat would also increase the number of dragon flies, bats and birds that prey on mosquitoes to help offset this increase.

The project is likely to maintain the primary mosquito species present in the area and is unlikely to introduce new mosquito species, which would likely keep the existing extent and duration of larval and adult life cycles intact (Stubblefield, personal communication). Any increase in the number of mosquitoes produced on site is unlikely to result in a longer duration of mosquitoes present through the year due to the dependence of the growth and development of mosquito larvae on the ambient air and water temperatures. These factors generally determine the timing of the first hatch of each species and the end of season mortality of adults already hatched or larvae waiting to be hatched from year to year.

189

Comment 8_5: There are already hundreds and hundreds of river miles with already existing wetlands…Can’t you develop an already existing wetland??

Response: The Ryan Ranch project identifies a need to address the ongoing erosion of the riverbank and berm in this area (EA, pp. 6-7). The proposed riverbank restoration provides the opportunity to restore nearly 70 acres of wetland habitat within the Deschutes basin. The Dillon Falls area is already a developed portal access site within the Wild and Scenic River corridor that includes designated parking, toilets, a kiosk and a trail on a constructed berm across Ryan Ranch meadow. The project proposes to augment the existing development with an ADA accessible boardwalk trail, educational interpretation, and additional toilets to accommodate continued access through the restored wetland area at the site. See also response to Comment 3_1.

Letter #9: Cheryl Buck

Comment 9_1: This project will drastically change the Deschutes River trail experience for trail users.

Response: See response to comment 7_9. Recreation is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) for segment 4C of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor because of the range of activities, the variety of interpretation opportunities, and the attraction of the river for vacationers (UDWSR, p. 10). The EA addresses the UDWSR standards for maintaining this resource and minimizing the effects of the project on these values (EA, pp. 47-48). The project would provide continued access to and through the Ryan Ranch area on the Deschutes River trail for a variety of recreational activities, including hiking, biking, wildlife viewing, dog running, fishing, horseback riding, photography and sightseeing activities.

Management of the recreational use and experience in this area is guided by the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) defined in the UDWSR Plan for segment 4C of the river corridor. The UDWSR provides three indicators for determining a ROS classification, including Road Access, the number of Recreational Sites and the percentage of Private Property within each segment of the river (UDWSR, Appendix E-1). The ROS standard defined for recreational use in segment 4C is defined as Roaded Natural based on a blend of these three indicators (UDWSR, p. 35), but falls within a ROS standard of Rural under existing conditions for the number of developed Recreational Sites (EA, p. 48).

The commenter does not define how they think the trail experience will be changed to justify the qualitative statement that it would be “drastically changed.” Analysis in the EA shows that the ROS standard for segment 4C of the river would be met as a result of this project. The definition of existing parking and the addition of five designated parking sites at the Dillon Falls access point would maintain the number of sites per river mile within the 6-15 range defined by the Rural ROS standard identified for this indicator. By extension, the designed annual capacity of non-commercial and outfitter use based on the number of developed and dispersed recreation sites would not be exceeded as a result of this project and the recreational experience as it relates to encounters by a user would not be expected to change drastically from current conditions.

Comment 9_2: From the levee trail, used by many anglers, there is a fine view of the elk that frequent the meadow for spring and summer forage.

190

Response: Although the new location of the river trail is too far away from the river from which anglers could cast a fly or lure, a view of the meadow would still be available. The elevation of the trail would be approximately one foot lower than the existing berm but would still be higher than the surface of the slough basin and provide views to the west that are currently available. The elk are still likely to utilize areas of the meadow from which they would be visible during the day since the habitat created will provide browse species that are palatable and desirable.

Comment 9_3: They [the elk herd] have excellent forest cover to retreat to on the meadows far edge.

Response: The inundation of the slough basin would be expected to raise the groundwater in the 40 plus acre forested bottomland area to the west of the current open meadow area. Although this would likely increase the mortality of the existing conifers in this area, some conifers are likely to be maintained and the standing snags or fallen tree boles resulting from any mortality, along with the expected increase in the vigor and size of the aspen clones present in the area, would continue to provide complex cover for the elk and deer in this area (EA, p. 83).

Comment 9_4: Drowning this area will banish [elk, coyotes and hawks] from an excellent forage and hunting ground and will take a wonderful wildlife viewing area from trail users.

Response: The effects of inundating the slough basin on wildlife are included in the EA (EA, p. 83. See response to comments 7_15 and 7_16 for effects to elk in the area and response to comment 7_17 for effects on generalist predators and their prey base. Although the vole and pocket gopher prey base currently utilized by coyotes and hawks would likely be reduced within the existing meadow area, many of them will be able to re-establish in the 40 acre area to the west and the margins of the slough basin. Both coyotes and hawks are generalist species that do not depend entirely on the prey base of small mammals in the meadow area and would be capable of hunting the likely increase of waterfowl and other avian species in the wetland.

Forage for elk within the slough basin would likely increase as a result of this project, primarily due to the larger size and vigor of sedge and willow species that elk utilize as browse. Additionally, cover provided by willows is likely to reduce the impacts of human presence in the area and increase their level of comfort within the basin area during daylight hours. Elk are also not hesitant to browse in wet areas where the water is slightly at or above the surface, and the expected wetland conditions would also provide additional habitat for a number of waterfowl and avian species for wildlife viewing from the boardwalk trail location.

Comment 9_5: Adding a boardwalk, new restroom facilities, new parking lots, bus areas for school children and viewing platforms will drive away these valuable creatures [and] will also spoil a near-wilderness experience for resident and out of town trail users.

Response: The project has been designed to minimize impacts to wildlife by maintaining the trail location, viewing nodes and parking within the existing use corridor or parking areas. The proposed restrooms would be located away from the open slough basin with a barrier of trees and vegetation to minimize their visual and physical impact on wildlife in the area. Additional car parking is proposed in existing areas of disturbance with a small increase in the footprint size and the bus parking area designated for the project would utilize an existing road and pull through area without increasing the footprint. The location of the boardwalk is intended to maintain use within a corridor of existing use to which wildlife species have likely become habituated. The boardwalk trail and interpretive nodes that are proposed would provide viewing in similar locations to what is currently present for users

191

walking across the berm on the Deschutes River Trail, and the wetland conditions may reduce the impact of human use on wildlife by limiting use across the open basin area.

The commenter provides no basis for a definition of a “near-wilderness experience” to which a change as a result of the project can be evaluated. See response to comment 9_1 for an evaluation of the effects on the recreational experience.

Comment 9_6: This usage will spoil the wonderful sense of serenity and solitude that can be experienced here.

Response: The Ryan Ranch area is currently very popular with a variety of user groups and, although moments of solitude are possible, multiple encounters are likely on most days when road access is open. The expected increase in use as a result of the project is within guidelines identified by the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River (USWSR) Comprehensive Management Plan for the river segment in which Ryan Ranch is located (see response to comment 9_1) and would continue to be limited by the number of designated parking spots on site.

Comment 9_7: There are many other methods to address erosion-control, short of flooding the meadow.

Response: The commenter provides no specific methods to address erosion control. Other methods to stabilize the river bank such as rock riprap would not meet visual standards for a free flowing river in a Wild and Scenic corridor and would likely require continued maintenance. The project proposes to restore the physical and hydrologic conditions of the river/slough system to support natural vegetation capable of stabilizing the bank in a manner that would meet scenic quality standards, provide instream cover and streambank complexity, and would not need long term maintenance.

Comment 9_8: Anglers like the lack of brush and other obstructions that tend to foul up casting.

Response: The restoration of the riverbank would increase the size and density of riparian vegetation along this reach of the river. However, access to the bank would not be restricted and conditions would replicate the vegetative composition of other slough/riverbank areas along the Upper Deschutes from which casting is possible. The project would also improve instream habitat for fish by reducing existing erosional cutbanks and creating overhanging banks for cover (see Fisheries effects section, EA Chapter 3).

Comment 9_9: Another down side of this project would be increased mosquito habitat.

Response: See response to Comment 8_3.

Comment 9_10: Creating more wetlands will actually reduce recreational opportunities available.

Response: The commenter is not specific about what available recreational opportunities would be reduced. The project places no restrictions on current or future recreational uses of the area. The boardwalk construction would maintain through access on the Deschutes River Trail from which current wildlife and landscape viewing is possible. Access along the river bank and within the basin would not be administratively restricted but may be more difficult due to vegetation and water levels. Additional access would be provided for users with access limitations and interpretive opportunities

192

would be provided to enhance the users experience and knowledge of the ecological benefits of the site.

Comment 9_11: PEOPLE LOVE MEADOWS. Your efforts to include more people in this lovely riverside meadow environment…will actually exclude many more.

Response: The existing use of the Deschutes River trail, the Dillon Falls day use area and Ryan Ranch meadow is indicative of the public’s connection to the area. The USFS proposes to restore an artificially created and maintained wet meadow to a natural emergent marsh wetland condition while providing continued access to the river, slough basin and the Deschutes River trail (EA, p. 7). The additional access for those with physical access disabilities from the project via an ADA accessible trail and boardwalk loop in the northeastern lobe of the Ryan Ranch slough basin is not intended to exclude any user groups in the area as result of this decision. Although the addition of infrastructure may alter the perception and use of this area by some members of the public, wetlands are also a very desirable environment to the public and this project would provide the opportunity for the public to learn the ecological benefits of a wetland while interacting with one.

Letter #10: Graydon Murphy

Comment 10_1: We are totally against this project and feel that the partially eroded sections (nick points) of the levee should be maintained…and reinforced with Willows planted and rocks/boulders for erosion control, as done in the 1970's.

Response: The Upper Deschutes has been designated as a Wild and Scenic River since the original stabilization activities that utilized large boulders were implemented. The use of large boulders or rock crib (gabion) structures to stabilize the river bank does not meet the visual standards and guidelines for a reach of the river designated as Scenic, which is defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads” (UDWSR, p. 21). The artificial elevation of the riverbank/berm under current conditions is too high to support sedges or willows capable of stabilizing the bank. The project proposes to restore natural bank elevations by building new bank and lowering existing bank to a condition capable of supporting these species and meeting the visual guidelines of the UDWSR.

Comment 10_2: The wildlife habitat in the area can be enhanced for Redband trout without flooding the beautiful meadow. Invasive species can be controlled without flooding out this beautiful meadow.

Response: Habitat for Redband trout will indeed be enhanced by the proposed streambank restoration activities by providing overhanging and complex banks with cover from native sedge and willow species, regardless of whether the meadow is flooded. In addition, there are many other species that utilize the area that would benefit from the inundation of the meadow, which is a historic slough floodplain of the river. These include, but are not limited to the Oregon spotted frog, which is proposed for listing as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and elk, which already utilize the area and would benefit from the additional willow browse and an increase of complex habitat in the area for cover and calving.

Populations of the invasive species reed canarygrass in the Ryan Ranch basin were treated with herbicides during the summer of 2013 but are unlikely to be eliminated by this treatment alone. Flooding the basin during the growing season would help retard the growth of this species in areas

193

where water depths were two feet or greater and provide saturated conditions through the life cycle of the native sedges to better help them compete against the reed canarygrass along the margins where the inundation levels were less than two feet.

Comment 10_3: Please consider alternate activities such as simply repairing and reinforcing nicks, and maintaining the meadow "as is"!

Response: Simply repairing and reinforcing nicks was considered during initial planning of the project but was identified as a method that would not meet the intent of the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic Management Plan (UDWSR). Preventing the river from accessing the historic slough floodplain in the Ryan Ranch basin has further increased the forces of erosion on the berm. The Ryan Ranch Restoration project was proposed to proactively respond to the active erosion by restoring the riverbank to a condition capable of supporting native sedge and willow species that can stabilize the bank in a manner that is consistent with the UDWSR.

The artificial berm along the edge of Ryan Ranch was originally constructed to allow the basin to be managed as private pastureland and re-enforced to allow the basin to be managed as part of a public grazing allotment after higher summer irrigation flows were realized with the construction of Wickiup Dam. However, the basin has not been managed for grazing since 1988, the managed summer and winter irrigation flows have combined to severely erode the riverbank, and the berm currently has no ecological or management purpose other than supporting the Deschutes River Trail. Re-establishing the natural hydrology of a historic slough floodplain of the river has the potential to provide nearly 70 acres of emergent marsh habitat for the benefit of many species, including critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog.

194

Appendix D: Groundwater Well Monitoring Data

195

Ryan Ranch Groundwater Monitoring Well Descriptions Depth to Depth to Well # Date installed ~Well depth Well Descriptions Mazama Bedrock 1 6/30/2010 11' 168" 24' NE Sump; drilled to 23' with closed bit auger (~3 ft into residuum at bottom); no water in 2010; water in subsurface early 2011; 2 4/28/2010 8' 90" 8' natural channel next to Geoprobe hole B2; no Mazama ash; refusal @ 8' on weathered Kiwa; no water 2010 3 4/28/2010 132" 112" >11' Elbow of artificial ditch; perched on diatomaceous; hole extends through Mazama ash into mixed alluvium; pipe slotted top to bottom 4 4/28/2010 132" 120" >11' Extended through Mazama ash into mixed alluvium; diatomaceous layer very dry when augered; 4A 4/19/2011 ~10' ~10' >10' Extended through Mazama ash into mixed alluvium; seam of water encountered ~ 2' above Mazama in diatomaceous; 5 4/28/2010 192" 240" (geoprobe B4) >20' entirely lacustrine diatomaceous to 16' depth; dry below water table when installed; lower 10 ft slotted; 6 4/28/2010 120" 38" >10' Northwestern lobe of basin; Extends through Mazama ash and into mixed alluvium/lacustrine deposits; diatomaceous layer moist when augered; 7A 5/25/2010 5.5' 64" >6' located in drainage ditch, 1/3 distance between elbow and the NE Sump; Mazama @64"; 7B 5/25/2010 5.5' 41" >6' located in drainage ditch, 2/3 distance between elbow and the NE Sump; Mazama @41"; 8 5/25/2010 5.5' 38" >6' located in drainage ditch, located 20 ft from the NE Sump; Mazama reached @ 36" 9 5/25/2010 6.75' 70" >7' located in low spot ~25 ft from NE Sump; diatomaceous to Mazama @ 70" w/weathered Kiwa at 80"; no water 2010; Mazama moist in 2011 10 5/25/2010 8.8' 90" >9' located in sinuous channel, at first elbow from the NE Sump; diatomaceous through bottom 11 5/25/2010 5.5' 180" (geoprobe B5) >15' located in sinuous channel, north of willows; diatomaceous through bottom 12 5/25/2010 4.5' >54" >20' located in borrow ditch near river, west of small lodgepole; diatomaceous through bottom 13 6/11/2010 19.2' 230" >15' thick layer of diatomaceous before reaching Mazama; seam of water in lower diatomaceous 14 6/11/2010 16' 192" >15' thick layer of diatomaceous before reaching Mazama; seam of water in lower diatomaceous 15 6/15/2010 5.5' river alluvium located in river floodplain east of trail; mixed alluvium and buried A horizons; water appears to be in equilibrium with river 16 6/24/2010 56" 144" >27' inner basin surface pool; 56" small auger hole; diatomaceous throughout 16A 7/27/2010 12' 144" >27' deepened through to Mazama ash 16B 7/27/2010 13.2' 156" >27' deepened through to Mazama ash 17 6/24/2010 66" 64" >6' west of inner basin; Mazama @ 64"; water under head 18 6/24/2010 132" 132" >11' located near subsurface entry of Kiwa drainage to basin; diatomaceous throughout with altering light/dark layers 19 6/24/2010 26" ?? >3' bottom of excavated hole near corral, approximately 30 yds west of meadow basin; gravelly sands of Kiwa below 4" of diatomaceous; water at bottom. 19B 7/7/2011 5.2' 22" located on "terrace' along western margin of basin; fine loamy sands beneath Mazama - older tephra source? 20 7/10/2010 10' 120" >10' edge of inner basin; Mazama ash 21 7/10/2010 6' 72" >6' edge of inner basin; Mazama ash 22 7/10/2010 4.5' 54" >5' edge of inner basin; Mazama ash 23 7/10/2010 3' 36" >4' edge of inner basin; Mazama ash 24 7/24/2010 12' 144" >12' approximately 50 ft west of borrow ditch 25 10/21/2010 15' 240" (geoprobe B4) >20' in borrow ditch at apex of river bend 26 4/19/2011 7.7' 7.7' >8' in borrow ditch east of MW-4; elevation ~2 ft below MW-4A 27 4/19/2011 4.7' > 4.7' >5' in drainage ditch east of trail; fine sands indicating river alluvium 50A1 11/8/2011 4.5 to 6.2' 10' 61' inner basin; diatomaceous silts 50A2 11/8/2011 3.8 to 4.5' 10' 61' inner basin; diatomaceous silts 50B 11/8/2011 11.2 10' 61' inner basin; Mazama ash 50C 11/8/2011 24.55 10' 61' inner basin; above clay layer 50D 11/8/2011 39.93 10' 61' inner basin; residuum/alluvium below clay layer 50E 11/8/2011 71.1 10' 61' inner basin; Kiowa basalt bedrock 51 11/9/2011 26.15 20' >46' edge of borrow ditch; southcentral portion of river edge; clay layer 51A 11/9/2011 2.5 to 3.5' 20' >46' edge of borrow ditch; southcentral portion of river edge; diatomaceous silts 52 11/10/2011 23.55 23.1' >46' edge of borrow ditch; northeastern portion of river edge; Mazama ash 53A 11/11/2011 19.6' mixed 5' NE Sump hole; mixed alluvium/residuum 53B 11/11/2011 44.6' mized 22' NE Sump hole; Kiowa basalt bedrock

196

Ryan Ranch 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Data (Elevations or depth below well head of water levels observed)

elevation of 20-Apr 28-Apr 4-May 6-May 13-May 20-May 25-May 1-Jun 4-Jun 11-Jun 15-Jun 21-Jun 24-Jun 30-Jun 6-Jul 12-Jul 21-Jul 27-Jul 2-Aug 10-Aug 19-Aug 24-Aug 3-Sep 14-Sep 24-Sep 5-Oct 21-Oct 3-Nov Mazama

1 4019.87 2 4030.01 3 4030.94 4038.61 4038.85 4039.29 4038.44 4038.27 4038.61 4038.44 4038.27 4038.02 4037.77 4037.69 4037.52 4037.28 4037.03 4036.95 4036.87 4036.79 4036.79 4036.79 4036.79 4036.59 4036.59 4035.83 4036.55 4 4029.85 4034.02 4033.18 4032.93 4032.10 4031.52 4031.43 4031.60 4031.27 4031.02 4030.85 4030.60 4030.43 4030.19 4030.03 4029.87 4029.70 4029.37 4029.29 4029.05 dry dry 5 4019.45 4038.20 4037.70 4036.95 4036.87 4037.53 4037.03 4036.62 4036.53 4036.08 4035.83 4035.43 4034.85 4034.28 5A 4019.45 4034.28 4034.12 4033.87 4033.62 4033.54 4033.41 4033.22 4033.06 4032.98 4032.73 4032.68 6 4036.24 4033.74 4033.49 4033.41 4033.74 4033.83 4033.58 4033.49 4033.16 4032.91 4032.76 4032.44 4032.02 4032.02 4031.86 4031.53 4031.35 4031.1 dry 7A 4033.50 60" 65" 56" 59" 62" 65" 65" 65" 66" 7B 4034.81 4033.65 4034.06 4035.23 4034.90 4034.06 4033.90 4033.41 4033.33 4033.09 4032.84 4032.84 8 4034.91 4033.08 4033.25 4033.50 4033.33 4033.25 4033.16 4033.16 4032.99 4032.91 4032.91 4032.83 4032.58 4032.10 9 4032.83 dry 10 4030.20 4034.00 4033.33 4032.91 4032.33 4031.76 4031.43 4031.35 11 4026.01 4038.01 4038.68 4038.34 4037.34 4036.68 4036.35 4035.52 4035.11 4035.03 11A 4026.01 4033.03 4033.36 4033.12 4032.93 4032.93 4032.93 4033.12 4033.5 12 4038.96 4039.04 4039.21 4038.88 4038.63 4038.46 4037.71 4037.54 4037.08 4036.67 4036.25 4035.98 4035.41 4035.25 4035.41 4036.21 4036.71 4036.21 4036.65 4036.07 4038.09 13 4021.63 4039.04 4038.54 4037.63 4037.21 4036.38 4035.48 4034.90 4033.90 4032.82 4031.07 4031.07 4032.27 13A 4021.63 4031.07 4032.27 4033.43 4032.68 4032.18 14 4024.03 4035.11 4034.36 4031.61 4030.61 4029.69 4028.61 4027.28 4025.53 14A 4024.03 4025.53 4025.28 4025.03 dry 187" 15 4041.85 4041.94 4041.77 4042.02 4042.19 4042.27 4042.27 4042.11 4042.03 4042.11 4042.11 4042.19 4041.89 4041.89 4041.19 4041.09 4039.09 4039.67 16 4024.72 4037.64 4035.71 4034.78 4034.03 4033.61 4032.78 4032.14 4031.14 DRY DRY 16A 4024.72 4032.12 4031.82 4031.42 4031.02 4030.72 4030.3 4030.03 4029.81 4029.81 4029.63 4030.29 16B 4024.71 4032.11 4031.71 4031.21 4030.71 4030.41 4029.91 4029.67 4029.5 4029.5 4029.5 4030.01 17 4031.92 4034.08 4033.92 4033.44 4033.02 4032.61 4031.94 4031.86 4031.78 4031.28 4031.03 4030.95 dry dry 18 4026.78 4034.93 4034.76 4034.68 4034.35 4034.18 4034.09 4033.82 4033.15 4032.99 4032.78 4032.51 4032.18 4031.9 4031.53 4031.88 19 4036.27 4036.02 4035.94 4035.69 4035.44 4035.36 4035.36 4035.36 4035.28 4035.28 dry dry 20 4029.09 4035.59 4035.34 4035.26 4035.34 4035.26 4035.18 4034.98 4034.88 4034.18 21 4032.03 4032.78 4032.61 4031.95 4031.87 4031.87 dry 22 4033.53 4028.5 4028 4027.7 4027.7 dry 23 4035.79 4032.04 4032.04 4032.04 4032.04 dry 24 4029.10 4036.2 4036.28 4036.2 4035.9 4035.8 4035 4035.45 river stage 1100.00 1269.00 1515.00 1637.00 1901.00 2050.00 2000.00 1650.00 1500.00 1580.00 1710.00 1850.00 1720.00 1930.00 2140.00 2240.00 2210.00 2040.00 1995.00 2020.00 2060.00 2090.00 1850 1640 1260 1300 460 535 river elev 4040.75 4041.28 4041.84 4042.00 4042.33 4042.51 4042.42 4042.10 4041.91 4042.00 4042.10 4042.28 4042.10 4042.33 4042.67 4042.87 4042.67 4042.47 4042.41 4042.45 4042.53 4042.59 4042.28 4042.05 4041.24 4041.40 4039.20 4039.69

197

Ryan Ranch 2011, 2012, 2013 Groundwater Monitoring Data (Elevations of observed water levels in cased wells)

MW# substrate well depth correction elevation 11/22/2011 12/6/2011 12/14/2011 1/5/2012 1/13/2012 2/16/2012 4/23/2012 5/15/2012 50A1 dia silts 4.5 to 6.2' 2.9 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.1 4039.15 4039.11 50A2 dia silts 3.8 to 4.5' 3 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.1 4039.2 4039.16 50B Mazama 11.2 4.41 4038.15 4030.06 4030.36 4030.41 4032.26 4032.06 4036.68 4037.71 4037.67 50C clay 24.55 4.4 4038.15 4028.7 4028.65 4028.7 4030 4029.85 4034.85 4036.65 4036.63 50D residuum 39.93 4.27 4038.15 3999.32 3999.14 3999.07 3999.02 3998.92 3999.04 3999.07 3999.17 50E Kiowa 71.1 4 4038.15 3974.85 3974.7 3974.58 3974.85 3974.85 3976.21 3977.7 3977.32 51 clay 26.15 2.65 4041.46 4040.21 4040.41 4040.26 4040.44 4040.44 4040.91 4040.96 4041.79 51A dia silts 2.5 to 3.5' 0.5 4041.46 4041.46 4041.46 4041.46 4041.46 4041.46 4040.56 4040.16 4039.84 52 Mazama 23.55 2.5 4042.25 4038.75 4038.85 4038.8 4039.35 4039.3 4040.67 4040.85 4041.28 53A residuum 19.6' -0.5 4034.15 4034.15 4014.39 4014.15 4015 4034.15 4034.15 4014.6 4014.68 53B Kiowa 44.6' -0.5 4034.15 4034.15 3991.45 3993 3993.2 4034.15 4034.15 4004 4003.08

198

9/28/2012 10/10/2012 10/19/2012 10/31/2012 11/7/2012 11/16/20912 11/26/2012 11/30/20212 12/3/2012 12/10/2012 1/17/2013 2/4/2013 2/11/2013 2/15/2013 2/28/2013 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4032.5 4032.75 4032.99 4035.61 4036.42 4037.48 4037.79 4037.84 4037.89 4038.2 4038.15 4038.09 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4035.77 4036.48 4037.52 4038.14 4038 4038 4038.05 4038.2 4038.05 4031.47 4031.31 4031.43 4031.91 4032.1 4032.28 4034.4 4034.88 4035.93 4036.46 4036.32 4036.67 4036.67 4036.66 4036.56 4030.52 4030.37 4030.55 4030.98 4031.14 4031.31 4033.49 4034.19 4035.21 4035.65 3999.38 3999.42 3999.45 3999.51 3999.49 3999.51 3999.47 3999.58 3999.35 3999.32 3999.29 3999.35 3999.28 3999.29 3999.28 3977 3976.89 3976.78 3976.76 3977.75 3976.75 3976.63 3976.72 3976.94 3976.56 4041.34 4041.18 4040.88 4040.66 4040.63 4040.55 4040.1 4040 4040.78 4040.8 4040.96 4040.73 4040.56 4040.5 4040.28 4039.35 4039.44 4039.36 4039.09 4038.95 4039.12 4039.77 4040.3 4040.56 4040.5 4040.68 4040.33 4040.1 4040.01 4039.66 4039.83 4039.7 4038.93 4038.69 4038.74 4038.79 4039.28 4039.34 4039.84 4040.2 4040.4 4040.52 4040.41 4040.34 4040.15 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 4014.83 4014.79 4014.59 4014.57 4014.56 3992.51 3992.42 3992.29 3992.15 3992.12 3992.04 3991.98 3991.94 3991.92 3991.88 3992.56 3993.9 3995.9 3997.08 3998.52

6/1/2012 6/14/2012 6/21/2012 6/29/2012 7/6/2012 7/12/2012 7/23/2012 7/26/2012 8/2/2012 8/16/2012 8/22/2012 8/31/2012 9/7/2012 9/12/2012 9/20/2012 4038.92 4038.75 4038.57 4038.46 4038.28 4038.04 4037.43 4037.01 4036.08 4034.49 4033.84 4033 4032.42 4032.21 4031.59 4038.97 4038.8 4038.62 4038.53 4038.53 4038.08 4037.43 4037.03 4036.06 4034.54 4033.85 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4038.15 4037.51 4037.3 4037.11 4036.99 4036.81 4036.57 4036.03 4035.77 4035.01 4033.79 4033.22 4032.64 4032.22 4031.98 4031.72 4036.46 4036.25 4036.08 4036.06 4035.88 4035.64 4035.08 4034.81 4034.04 4032.81 4032.26 4031.68 4031.28 4031.06 4030.75 3999.23 3999.28 3999.37 3999.32 3999.34 3999.12 3999.29 3999.34 3999.28 3999.24 3999.29 3999.35 3999.25 3999.25 3999.35 3977.4 3977.7 3977.66 3977.92 3977.92 3977.75 3977.85 3977.79 3977.85 3977.68 3977.72 3977.38 3977.63 3977.58 3977.18 4041.87 4041.64 4041.91 4041.76 4041.97 4042.32 4042.1 4042.12 4042.11 4042.34 4042.26 4041.84 4041.85 4041.76 4041.56 4039.77 4039.51 4039.6 4039.61 4039.54 4040.23 4039.91 4039.99 4040.14 4040.06 4040.01 4039.79 4039.73 4039.77 4039.52 4041.27 4041.03 4041.05 4040.97 4040.88 4040.87 4040.87 4040.8 4040.71 4040.62 4040.57 4040.42 4040.25 4040.19 4040.04 4014.6 4014.58 4014.57 4014.51 4014.45 4014.44 4014.4 4014.4 4014.39 4014.34 4014.34 4014.32 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 4002.45 3998.76 3996.77 3995.51 3994.7 3993.98 3993.89 3993.77 3993.35 3992.95 3992.79 3992.65 3992.71 3992.65 3992.57

199

3/12/2013 3/19/2013 4/11/2013 4/18/2013 4/24/2013 5/2/2013 5/28/2013 6/20/2013 7/3/2013 4038.04 4037.94 4037.91 4037.77 4037.57 4037.13 4036.6 4034.31 4033.64 4038 4037.9 4037.92 4037.83 4037.61 4037.13 4036.64 4034.3 #NUM! 4036.51 4036.42 4036.33 4036.24 4036.06 4035.76 4035.22 4033.61 4033.06

3999.32 3999.36 3999.32 3999.25 3999.32 3999.27 3999.52 3999.35 3999.32

4037 4036.89 4037.39 4037.56 4037.83 4038.45 4038.04 4038.06 4037.73 4036.45 4036.27 4036.22 4036.3 4036.31 4037.03 4036.89 4037.04 4036.73 4036.05 4035.98 4036.31 4036.35 4036.66 4036.9 4036.5 4036.55 4036.24 4018.8 4018.83 4018.67 4018.61 4018.61 4018.61 4018.59 4018.57 4018.52 4003.2 4003.15 4002.4 4002.11 4001.26 3998.27 3993.66 3992.71 3992.6

200