Biological Assessment on 

Continued Operation and Maintenance 

of the Deschutes River Basin Projects 

and Effects on Essential Fish Habitat 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Deschutes, Crooked River, and Wapinitia Projects
 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Pacific Northwest Region 

Lower Columbia Area Office Pacific Northwest Regional Office 

Portland, Oregon Boise, Idaho 

September 2003
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our 

Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian 

tribes and our commitments to island communities. 

MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water 

and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the 

interest of the American public. 
Deschutes River Basin, Reclamation Projects 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SELECTED LIST OF ACRONYMS 

CHAPTER 1.0 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 PURPOSE OF BA................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................................. 1-1 

1.3 ACTION AREA .................................................................................................... 1-2 

1.4 SUMMARY OF THE SECTION 7 ESA CONSULTATION PROCESS........................... 1-2 

1.4.1 Previous ESA Consultations ................................................................. 1-6 

1.4.2 Future Consultations ............................................................................. 1-8 

1.5 ESA-LISTED SPECIES EVALUATED IN THIS BA ................................................. 1-8 

1.6 ARRANGEMENT OF THIS BA.............................................................................. 1-8 

CHAPTER 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1.1 Federal Facilities Included in the Proposed Action .............................. 2-1 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.......................................................... 2-5 

2.2.1 General Operations ............................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.1.1 Flood Control ......................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.1.2 Incidental Operations ............................................................. 2-7 

2.2.1.3 Special Operational Requests ................................................ 2-7 

2.2.2 Deschutes Project Operations ............................................................... 2-7 

2.2.2.1 Storage and Delivery of Water ............................................ 2-11 

2.2.2.2 Diversion of Water............................................................... 2-21 

2.2.3 Crooked River Project Operations ...................................................... 2-23 

2.2.3.1 Storage and Delivery of Water ............................................ 2-24 

2.2.3.2 Diversion of Water............................................................... 2-32 

2.2.4 Wapinitia Project Operations .............................................................. 2-33 

2.2.4.1 Storage and Delivery of Water ............................................ 2-34 

2.2.4.2 Diversion of Water............................................................... 2-37 

2.2.5 Facilities Maintenance ........................................................................ 2-37 

2.3 LEGAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ........................................................... 2-38 

2.3.1 Congressional Authorizations ............................................................. 2-38 

2.3.1.1 Deschutes Project ................................................................. 2-39 

2.3.1.2 Crooked River Project.......................................................... 2-39 

2.3.1.3 Wapinitia Project ................................................................. 2-40 

2.3.2 State Water Law.................................................................................. 2-40 

2.3.3 Contracts ............................................................................................. 2-42 

September 2003 – Final i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
 

2.3.3.1 Deschutes Project ................................................................. 2-42 

2.3.3.2 Crooked River Project.......................................................... 2-43 

2.3.3.3 Wapinitia Project ................................................................. 2-44 

2.4 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 2-44 

CHAPTER 3.0 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS........................................................ 3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 HYDROLOGIC DATA........................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 DESCHUTES RIVER............................................................................................. 3-4 

3.3.1 Crane Prairie Reservoir......................................................................... 3-4 

3.3.2 Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam .......................................... 3-5 

3.3.3 Wickiup Reservoir ................................................................................ 3-8 

3.3.4 Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam .................................................. 3-9 

3.3.5 Deschutes River below Bend .............................................................. 3-11 

3.3.6 Deschutes River Near Culver.............................................................. 3-13 

3.3.7 Deschutes River Near Madras ............................................................ 3-15 

3.3.8 Deschutes River at Moody .................................................................. 3-18 

3.4 CROOKED RIVER .............................................................................................. 3-20 

3.4.1 Prineville Reservoir ............................................................................ 3-20 

3.4.2 Crooked River below Bowman Dam .................................................. 3-21 

3.4.3 Crooked River Near Culver and Below Opal Springs........................ 3-23 

3.5 WHITE RIVER................................................................................................... 3-26 

3.5.1 Clear Lake ........................................................................................... 3-26 

3.5.2 Clear Creek below Clear Lake............................................................ 3-26 

3.5.3 White River below Tygh Valley......................................................... 3-27 

3.6 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................................... 3-29 

CHAPTER 4.0 LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE 

 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 BALD EAGLE...................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.1 Status..................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.2 Distribution ........................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.3 Life History ........................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.4 Habitat Requirements............................................................................ 4-4 

4.2.4.1 Nesting Habitat ...................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.4.2 Wintering Habitat................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.4.3 Foraging Habitat .................................................................... 4-7 

4.3 BULL TROUT ...................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.3.1 Status..................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.3.2 Historical Distribution .......................................................................... 4-8 

4.3.3 Present Distribution ............................................................................ 4-11 

ii September 2003 – Final 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

4.3.4 General Life History ........................................................................... 4-11 

4.3.5 Habitat Requirements.......................................................................... 4-13 

4.4 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD ........................................................... 4-14 

4.4.1 Status................................................................................................... 4-14 

4.4.2 Distribution ......................................................................................... 4-14 

4.4.3 Life History ......................................................................................... 4-18 

4.4.4 Habitat Requirements.......................................................................... 4-18 

4.5 CANADA LYNX ................................................................................................ 4-20 

4.5.1 Status................................................................................................... 4-20 

4.5.2 Distribution, Life History, and Habitat Requirements........................ 4-20 

4.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................... 4-21 

4.6.1 Status................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.6.2 Distribution, Life History, and Habitat Requirements........................ 4-21 

CHAPTER 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ..................................................... 5-1 

5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 BALD EAGLE...................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline............................................... 5-1 

5.2.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area ............................ 5-2 

5.2.2.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin........................................... 5-3 

5.2.2.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin....................................... 5-10 

5.2.2.3 Crooked River Subbasin ...................................................... 5-11 

5.2.3 Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat and Prey Base....................................... 5-14 

5.2.3.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin......................................... 5-14 

5.2.3.2 Crooked River Subbasin ...................................................... 5-19 

5.2.3.3 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin ........................................ 5-22 

5.3 BULL TROUT .................................................................................................... 5-23 

5.3.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline............................................. 5-23 

5.3.1.1 Habitat Degradation ............................................................. 5-23 

5.3.1.2 Passage Barriers and Stream Diversions.............................. 5-23 

5.3.1.3 Competition with Exotic Species......................................... 5-24 

5.3.1.4 Reduced Populations from Overfishing or Eradication 

Efforts .................................................................................. 5-25 

5.3.1.5 Catastrophic Events ............................................................. 5-25 

5.3.1.6 Recovery Efforts .................................................................. 5-25 

5.3.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area .......................... 5-26 

5.3.2.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin C Headwaters to Bend ... 5-26 

5.3.2.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin C Bend to Lake Billy 

Chinook................................................................................ 5-27 

5.3.2.3 Crooked River Subbasin ...................................................... 5-29 

5.3.2.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin ........................................ 5-30 

5.4 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD ........................................................... 5-32 

September 2003 – Final iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
 

5.4.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline............................................. 5-32 

5.4.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area .......................... 5-34 

5.4.2.1 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin ........................................ 5-34 

5.4.2.2 Wild Deschutes River Steelhead.......................................... 5-41 

5.5 CANADA LYNX ................................................................................................ 5-50 

5.5.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline............................................. 5-50 

5.5.2 Current Status...................................................................................... 5-51 

5.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................... 5-52 

5.6.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline............................................. 5-52 

5.6.2 Current Status...................................................................................... 5-52 

CHAPTER 6.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 6-1 

6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.2 HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 6-2 

6.2.1 Description of Modeled Scenarios........................................................ 6-2 

6.2.2 Determination of Flow Effects.............................................................. 6-5 

6.2.2.1 Diversions Above the Deschutes River Below Bend Gage 

(DEBO).................................................................................. 6-8 

6.2.2.2 Deschutes River Near Culver................................................. 6-8 

6.2.2.3 Deschutes River Near Madras ............................................... 6-9 

6.2.2.4 Deschutes River at Moody ................................................... 6-10 

6.2.3 Summary ............................................................................................. 6-11 

6.3 BALD EAGLE EFFECTS ANALYSIS .................................................................... 6-11 

6.3.1 Upper Deschutes Subbasin Effects Analysis ...................................... 6-12 

6.3.1.1 Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs................................. 6-13 

6.3.1.2 Deschutes River Below Project Reservoirs ......................... 6-19 

6.3.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin Effects Analysis........................... 6-19 

6.3.3 Crooked River Subbasin Effects Analysis.......................................... 6-19 

6.3.3.1 Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs........................................ 6-20 

6.3.3.2 Crooked River Below Bowman Dam .................................. 6-23 

6.3.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin Effects Analysis ............................ 6-24 

6.3.4.1 Clear Lake ............................................................................ 6-24 

6.3.4.2 Lower Deschutes River........................................................ 6-24 

6.3.5 Summary of Effects ............................................................................ 6-24 

6.3.5.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin......................................... 6-25 

6.3.5.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin....................................... 6-25 

6.3.5.3 Crooked River Subbasin ...................................................... 6-25 

6.3.5.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin ........................................ 6-26 

6.4 BULL TROUT .................................................................................................... 6-26 

6.4.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin........................................................ 6-26 

6.4.1.1 Effects Analysis ................................................................... 6-26 

6.4.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin...................................................... 6-26 

iv September 2003 – Final 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

6.4.2.1 Effects Analysis ................................................................... 6-26 

6.4.2.2 Effects Conclusion ............................................................... 6-28 

6.4.3 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin ....................................................... 6-28 

6.4.3.1 Effects Analysis ................................................................... 6-28 

6.4.3.2 Effects Conclusion ............................................................... 6-30 

6.4.4 Crooked River Subbasin ..................................................................... 6-30 

6.4.4.1 Effects Analysis ................................................................... 6-30 

6.4.4.2 Effects Conclusion ............................................................... 6-31 

6.5 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD ........................................................... 6-31 

6.5.1 Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 6-31 

6.5.2 Effects Conclusion .............................................................................. 6-35 

6.6 CANADA LYNX ................................................................................................ 6-36 

6.6.1 Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 6-36 

6.6.2 Effects Conclusion .............................................................................. 6-36 

6.7 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................... 6-36 

6.7.1 Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 6-36 

6.7.2 Effects Conclusion .............................................................................. 6-37 

CHAPTER 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................ 7-1 

7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.2 POPULATION GROWTH ....................................................................................... 7-1 

7.3 RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 7-1 

7.4 NON-FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................. 7-2 

7.5 WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................. 7-2 

7.6 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................... 7-4 

7.7 WATERSHED RESTORATION ............................................................................... 7-5 

7.8 OREGON BULL TROUT STRATEGIES ................................................................... 7-6 

7.9 OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS ............................................... 7-6 

7.10 ODFW FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS .......................................................... 7-7 

7.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES .............. 7-8 

7.11.1 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................. 7-8 

7.11.2 Bull Trout.............................................................................................. 7-8 

7.11.3 Steelhead ............................................................................................... 7-8 

7.11.4 Canada Lynx and Northern Spotted Owl.............................................. 7-9 

CHAPTER 8.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ................................................................ 8-1 

8.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES ...................................................... 8-1 

CHAPTER 9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ........................................................... 9-1 

9.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 9-1 

9.2 DESCRIPTION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ....................................................... 9-1 

September 2003 – Final v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

9.3 STATUS, LIFE HISTORY, AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF DESCHUTES

 BASIN SALMON STOCKS.................................................................................... 9-2 

9.3.1 Spring Chinook Salmon ........................................................................ 9-2 

9.3.2 Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon.............................................................. 9-6 

9.3.3 Coho Salmon......................................................................................... 9-9 

9.4 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 9-9 

9.4.1 Inaccessible Historic Habitat (Middle Deschutes Subbasin and 

Crooked River Subbasin)...................................................................... 9-9 

9.4.2 Accessible/Current and Historic Habitat (Lower Deschutes 

Subbasin)............................................................................................. 9-10 

9.5 EFFECTS CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 9-11 

CHAPTER 10.0 LITERATURE CITED................................................................... 10-1 

APPENDICES 

A.	 Updated Species List from NMFS and USFWS 

B.	 Water Quality Report 

C.	 Extended Deschutes Surface Water Distribution Model (Users Manual) 

D.	 Effects of Wasco Dam Storage on White River Flows 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Deschutes River Basin, Reclamation Projects ......................................... 1-3 

Figure 2-1. Deschutes Project, Oregon – Major Facilities ......................................... 2-9 

Figure 2-2. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Crane 

Prairie Dam, 1991-1995 (dry year series) .............................................. 2-15 

Figure 2-3. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Crane 

Prairie Dam, 1996-2001 (wet year series) ............................................. 2-16 

Figure 2-4. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Wickiup 

Dam (WICO), 1991-1995 (dry year series) ........................................... 2-19 

Figure 2-5. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Wickiup 

Dam (WICO), 1996-2001 (wet year series)........................................... 2-20 

Figure 2-6. Crooked River Project – Major Facilities .............................................. 2-25 

Figure 2-7. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Crooked River below Prineville 

Reservoir (PRVO), 1991-1995 (dry year series) ................................... 2-30 

Figure 2-8. Daily Average Flows (QD) for the Crooked River below Prineville 

Reservoir (PVRO), 1996-2001(wet year series) .................................... 2-31 

Figure 2-9. Wapinitia Project – Major Facilities ...................................................... 2-35 

Figure 3-1. Deschutes River Basin Water Distribution System ................................. 3-3 

Figure 3-2. Crane Prairie Historic End-of-Month Reservoir Elevations (Water 

Years 1941-2001)..................................................................................... 3-4 

vi September 2003 – Final 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Figure 3-3. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Reservoir, Historic Average 

Daily Flow (Water Years 1923-2001). .................................................... 3-5 

Figure 3-4. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, Historic Average 

Daily Flow less than 50 cfs (Water Years 1923-2001) ............................ 3-6 

Figure 3-5. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance Prior to Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water 

Years 1923-1938)..................................................................................... 3-6 

Figure 3-6. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance After Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water 

Years 1950-2001)..................................................................................... 3-7 

Figure 3-7. Wickiup Reservoir Historic End-of-Month Elevations (Water 

Years 1950-2001)..................................................................................... 3-8 

Figure 3-8. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Historic Average Daily 

Flow (Water Years 1939-2001) ............................................................... 3-9 

Figure 3-9. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Historic Average Daily 

Flows less than 50 cfs (Water Years 1939-2001) .................................. 3-10 

Figure 3-10. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exeedance Before Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water 

Years 1939-1949)................................................................................... 3-10 

Figure 3-11. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance After Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water 

Years 1950-2001)................................................................................... 3-11 

Figure 3-12. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Daily Flow (Water Years 

1916-1990)............................................................................................. 3-12 

Figure 3-13. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1916-1939) ..................................... 3-12 

Figure 3-14. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1950-1990) ..................................... 3-13 

Figure 3-15. Deschutes River near Culver, Historic Average Daily Flow (Water 

Years 1953–2001).................................................................................. 3-14 

Figure 3-16. Deschutes River near Culver, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1953-2001) ........................................... 3-14 

Figure 3-17. Deschutes River near Madras, Historic Average Daily Flow (Water 

Years 1925-2001)................................................................................... 3-15 

Figure 3-18. Deschutes River near Madras, Average Monthly Flow Percent ............ 3-17 

Figure 3-19. Deschutes River near Madras, Average Monthly Flow Percent ............ 3-17 

Figure 3-20. Deschutes River at Moody, Historic Average Daily Flow (Water 

Years 1907-2001)................................................................................... 3-18 

Figure 3-21. Deschutes River at Moody, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1907-1939) ........................................... 3-19 

Figure 3-22. Deschutes River at Moody, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1962-2001) ........................................... 3-19 

September 2003 – Final vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
 

Figure 3-23. Prineville Reservoir Historic End-of-Month Elevations (Water 

Years 1962-2001)................................................................................... 3-21 

Figure 3-24. Crooked River below Bowman Dam, Historic Average Daily Flow 

(Water Years 1943-2001) ...................................................................... 3-22 

Figure 3-25. Crooked River below Bowman Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance Before Construction of Bowman Dam (Water 

Years 1943-1960)................................................................................... 3-22 

Figure 3-26. Crooked River below Bowman Dam, Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance After Construction of Bowman Dam (Water 

Years 1961-2001)................................................................................... 3-23 

Figure 3-27. Crooked River near Culver, Historic Average Daily Flow Before 

Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1918-1961) .................... 3-24 

Figure 3-28. Crooked River below Opal Springs, Historic Average Daily Flow 

After Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1962-1999) ........... 3-24 

Figure 3-29. Crooked River near Culver, Historic Average Monthly Flow
 

Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1918-1961) .................................... 3-25 

Figure 3-30. Crooked River below Opal Springs, Historic Average Monthly 

Flow Percent Exceedance After Bowman Dam (Water Years 1962-

2001) ...................................................................................................... 3-25 

Figure 3-31. Clear Lake Historic End-of-Month Elevations (Water Years 1984-

2001) ...................................................................................................... 3-26 

Figure 3-32. Clear Creek below Clear Lake, Historic Daily Flow (1968-1973) ........ 3-27 

Figure 3-33. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Daily Flow 

Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1918-1990) .................................... 3-28 

Figure 3-34. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance Before Construction of Wasco Dam (Water 

Years 1918-1959)................................................................................... 3-28 

Figure 3-35. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance After Construction of Wasco Dam (Water 

Years 1960-1990)................................................................................... 3-29 

Figure 4-1. Distribution of Bald Eagles in the Deschutes River Basin ...................... 4-5 

Figure 4-2. Distribution of Bull Trout in the Deschutes River Basin......................... 4-9 

Figure 4-3. Distribution of Summer Steelhead Trout in the Deschutes River 

Basin ...................................................................................................... 4-15 

Figure 4-4. Distribution of Canada lynx in the Deschutes River Basin ................... 4-23 

Figure 4-5. Distribution of Northern Spotted Owl in the Deschutes River Basin .... 4-25 

Figure 5-1. Bald Eagle Nesting Territories in Vicinity of Crane Prairie and 

Wickiup Reservoirs.................................................................................. 5-5 

Figure 5-2. Bald Eagle Production Success................................................................ 5-9 

Figure 5-3. Bald Eagle Breeding Success................................................................... 5-9 

Figure 5-4. Ochoco Reservoir – Historic End-of-Month Elevations........................ 5-21 

Figure 5-5. Wild and Hatchery Steelhead Captured at the Sherars Falls Trap......... 5-37 

viii September 2003 – Final 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Figure 6-1. Crane Prairie Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action...... 6-13 

Figure 6-2. Crane Prairie Reservoir Storage End-of-October – Proposed 

Action Exceedance Curves .................................................................... 6-14 

Figure 6-3. Wickiup Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action ............. 6-16 

Figure 6-4. Wickiup Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed Action 

Exceedance Curves ................................................................................ 6-16 

Figure 6-5. Prineville Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action ........... 6-20 

Figure 6-6. Prineville Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed Action 

Exceedance Curve.................................................................................. 6-21 

Figure 6-7. Ochoco Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action .............. 6-21 

Figure 6-8. Ochoco Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed Action 

Exceedance Curve.................................................................................. 6-22 

Figure 9-1. Distribution of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Deschutes River 

Basin ........................................................................................................ 9-3 

Figure 9-2. Distribution of Fall Chinook Salmon in the Deschutes River Basin ....... 9-7 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Partial List of Previous ESA Section 7 Consultations for 

Reclamation Actions in the Deschutes River Basin ................................ 1-6 

Table 2-1. Major Facilities Associated with Federal Projects in the Deschutes 

River Basin............................................................................................... 2-3 

Table 2-2. Crane Prairie Reservoir Storage Allocation........................................... 2-11 

Table 2-3. Summary of Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir Operations ................... 2-14 

Table 2-4. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance below Crane Prairie 

Dam, Deschutes River Basin ................................................................. 2-14 

Table 2-5. Summary of Wickiup Dam and Reservoir Operations .......................... 2-18 

Table 2-6. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance below Wickiup Dam, 

Deschutes River Basin ........................................................................... 2-18 

Table 2-7. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance below North Canal Dam,
 

Deschutes River Basin ........................................................................... 2-23 

Table 2-8. Summary of Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir Operations ......... 2-29 

Table 2-9. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance below Bowman Dam, 

Crooked River........................................................................................ 2-29 

Table 2-10. Summary of Wasco Dam and Clear Lake Operations ........................... 2-34 

Table 2-11. Water Storage Allocation for Deschutes River Basin Federal 

Reservoirs .............................................................................................. 2-43 

Table 2-12. Summary of Proposed and Interrelated and Interdependent Actions .... 2-45 

Table 3-1. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance for the Deschutes River 

near Madras............................................................................................ 3-16 

Table 3-2. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance for the Deschutes River 

at Moody ................................................................................................ 3-20 

September 2003 – Final ix 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
 

Table 4-1. ESA Federally-Listed Species Initially Considered for 

Consultation on the Deschutes River Basin Projects O&M .................... 4-1 

Table 4-2. Bull Trout Life History Summary.......................................................... 4-12 

Table 5-1. Bald Eagle Nest Production - Vicinity of Crane Prairie and 

Wickiup Reservoirs.................................................................................. 5-7 

Table 5-2. Bald Eagle Nest Production - Vicinity of Prineville Reservoir ............. 5-12 

Table 5-3. Daily Mean Flows (cfs) for USGS Streamflow Gages in the Lower 

Deschutes River near Madras and Moody, OR ..................................... 5-30 

Table 5-4. Wild and Hatchery Steelhead Captured at the Sherars Falls Trap......... 5-35 

Table 5-5. Number and Percent of Round Butte Hatchery Origin and Stray 

Hatchery-Origin Summer Steelhead as Determined by Fin Mark, 

Captured at the Sherars Falls Trap, By Year ......................................... 5-38 

Table 5-6. Number and Percent of Wild, Stray, and Round Butte HatcheryOrigin Summer Steelhead Returning to the Pelton Trap, By Run 

Year........................................................................................................ 5-38 

Table 5-7. Summer Steelhead Redd Counts, Buck Hollow Creek, By Section, 

By Year .................................................................................................. 5-39 

Table 5-8. Summer Steelhead Redd Counts, Bakeoven Creek, By Section, By 

Year........................................................................................................ 5-39 

Table 5-9. Results of Summer Steelhead Redd Surveys in the Trout Creek 

Drainage, By Year ................................................................................. 5-40 

Table 5-10. Estimated Preharvest Abundance of Wild Steelhead in the 

Deschutes River at Sherars Falls............................................................ 5-43 

Table 5-11. NMFS Matrix of Watershed Pathways and Indicators. ......................... 5-45 

Table 5-12. Mean Weekly Water Temperatures for the Lower Deschutes River 

at the USGS Gage near Madras, OR, 1972-1988, (by month) .............. 5-46 

Table 6-1. Summary of Major Facilities and Actions Included in Each 

Modeled Scenario .................................................................................... 6-4 

Table 6-2. Modeled Flows in the Deschutes River ................................................... 6-7 

Table 6-3. Modeled Total Diversions from the Deschutes River above the 

“Deschutes River below Bend” Gage. ..................................................... 6-8 

Table 6-4. Modeled Daily 50 Percent Exceedances for Streamflow in the 

Middle Deschutes River Near Culver, OR, (by month, in cfs).............. 6-27 

Table 6-5. Modeled Daily 50 Percent Exceedances for Streamflow in the 

Lower Deschutes River Near Madras and at Moody, OR. (by 

month, in cfs) ......................................................................................... 6-29 

Table 6-6. NMFS Matrix Checklist Documenting Environmental Baseline and 

General Effects of Reclamation’s Operations on MCR Steelhead in 

the Lower Deschutes River. ................................................................... 6-34 

Table 8-1. Summary of Proposed Action Effects on ESA Species Deschutes 

River Basin, Oregon................................................................................. 8-2 

Table 9-1. Deschutes River Basin, Pacific Salmon EFH Hydrologic Units ............. 9-2 

x September 2003 – Final 
SELECTED LIST OF ACRONYMS 

BA Biological Assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BiOp or BO Biological Opinion 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CCID Crook County Irrigation District 

Cfs Cubic Feet Per Second 

CHU Critical Habitat Units 

COID Central Oregon Irrigation District 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CTWSRO Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation of 

Oregon 

DRC Deschutes Resources Conservancy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

JFDIC Juniper Flats District Improvement Company 

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit 

LCAS Lynx Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
MCR Middle Columbia River 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NUID North Unit Irrigation District 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OID Ochoco Irrigation District 

OSU Oregon State University 

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department 

PBERP Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PGE Portland General Electric 

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

RM River Mile 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
 

CHAPTER 1.0 OVERVIEW 

1.1 PURPOSE OF BA 

This BA describes Reclamation’s proposed hydrologic operations and maintenance 

activities for Federal Reclamation projects in the Deschutes River basin, including the 

Deschutes, Crooked River, and Wapinitia Projects (Figure 1-1). This document also 

analyzes the effects of these proposed actions on species listed under the ESA. 

Reclamation is submitting this BA pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to the USFWS 

and the NMFS to ensure that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. Under the relevant regulation, the “contents of a biological 

assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency and will depend on the nature of 

the Federal action” [50 CFR § 402.12 (f)]. 

In addition, this BA also addresses potential effects on EFH as required under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 [Public Law 104-267]) (see Chapter 9). The EFH is 

evaluated for the following Deschutes River basin salmon stocks: 

• Spring Chinook salmon 

• Summer/fall Chinook salmon 

• Coho salmon 

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION 

Reclamation’s proposed action is the continued operation and maintenance of 

Reclamation project facilities throughout the Deschutes River basin as described in 

Chapter 2. Subsequent consultations will be initiated if significant changes are 

anticipated in future project O&M procedures, additional listings of species occurs within 

the Deschutes River basin potentially affected by O&M activities, or other criteria 

described in 50 CFR 402.16 apply. 

The Reclamation dam and reservoir system in the Deschutes River basin is operated to 

meet specific project authorized purposes such as irrigation water supply, flood control, 

fish and wildlife, recreation, and other functions. To accommodate the annual variation 

in water supply and demands, project operations are tailored to assure that public safety 

requirements are satisfied (including flood prevention) and that water delivery contractual 

September 2003 – Final 1-1 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

obligations are met (irrigation). Irrigation operations and flood control management are 

generally considered to be primary operations and represent a priority in terms of how 

dams and reservoirs are operated. Irrigation water delivery and flood control procedures 

require continuous water management adjustments and include many system operating 

considerations. Nonetheless, other management decisions can be implemented by river 

and dam operators on a daily basis as long as authorizations and legal constraints are met. 

1.3	 ACTION AREA 

This BA covers specific river, tributary, and reservoir reaches in the Deschutes River 

basin from headwater reservoirs to the Deschutes River’s confluence with the Columbia 

River. Two of the three Reclamation projects covered in this BA are located in the upper 

Deschutes basin above Lake Billy Chinook. The third irrigation project is located in the 

lower Deschutes basin. The frontispiece depicts the Deschutes River basin and the 

general location of Reclamation projects included in this ESA Section 7 consultation. 

Evaluation of ESA-listed species for this BA focuses on the aquatic and terrestrial 

environments that may be influenced by the O&M of Reclamation water storage and 

diversion facilities. 

In December 1999, Reclamation, the BPA, and the Corps (the action agencies) submitted 

a BA to NMFS and USFWS that covered updated FCRPS operations, including the 

hydrological effects to the Columbia River from O&M of several Reclamation irrigation 

projects. The Deschutes River basin projects are included in the FCRPS consultation. 

Consequently, the flow impacts of the Deschutes River basin projects are factored into 

the FCRPS consultations. 

1.4	 SUMMARY OF THE SECTION 7 ESA CONSULTATION 

PROCESS 

Reclamation began this Section 7 ESA consultation in February 2000 by requesting a 

listing of threatened and endangered species from the NMFS and USFWS. Reclamation 

later requested an updated ESA list in February 2001 and again in June 2002. 

Throughout this process Reclamation has met and communicated with NMFS and 

USFWS, as well as irrigation districts, the Tribes, and numerous Federal and state 

agencies (including the USFS, BLM, USGS, ODFW, ODEQ, and OWRD), to seek input 

and review information. A preliminary draft BA was distributed for review and comment 

to NMFS, USFWS, and the irrigation districts in July 2001. The proposed action was 

reevaluated and revised, resulting in revision of the preliminary draft BA. 

1-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin 

Reclamation Projects 

0 5 10 20 Miles 

122°W 121°W 120°W 

45°N 

84 

20 

26 

395 

97 

197 

30 

20 

97 

26 

Source: 

Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

7/23/2003 

Prineville 

Reservoir 

Wh ite Ri ver 

Deschute s 

R iver 

Buck Hollow Cr.

Bakeoven Cr. 

Ba dger Cr. 

Trout Creek 

McKay Cree k 

Mill Cr. 

Ochoco Creek

Marks Creek 

Crooked River 

Paulina 

Lake 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake Li t tle Desc hutes River 

Deschutes 

River 

Tu malo C r

S

.

quaw

Creek 

Metolius

R

Jefferson .

Creek 

Shitike Creek

Boulder Creek 

Badger Cr. 

er C

Clear Lake 

Mill Cr. 

Warm Springs R. 

Beav

reek 

Lake 

Billy Chinook Haystack Pr

Reservoir 

Ochoco 

Reservoir 

Bend 

Prineville Prineville Re dm on de m 

Sis te rsS s e 

War m

S

m 

pr in gs

W r

S r n s 

Maupin

Th e D al le sh D l es 

Hoo d R iv erH o R v r 

Deschutes River Basin 

Columbia River 

Crescent Creek 

Madras 

Wapinitia Project Wapinitia Project 

Deschutes

oject

Deschutes 

roject 

Crooked

Ri ve r

P

r 

ro je ct

Crooked 

i e

P o e t Arthur R. Bowman Dam 

Wasco Dam 

Haystack Dam 

Ochoco Dam 

North Unit Main Canal 

Project Lands 

Major Dams 

North Unit Main Canal 

W ASHINGTON 

O REGON 

Wickiup Dam 

Crane Prairie Dam 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

45°N 

44°N 

44°N 

122°W 121°W 120°W Figure 1-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

1-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The following summarizes the timeline and contacts made between Reclamation, NMFS, 

and USFWS leading up to the development of this current final BA (September 2003). 

This September 2003 BA supercedes the July 2001 preliminary draft BA. 

August 22, 2001 Written comments on preliminary draft BA received from 

NMFS. 

October 3, 2001 Written comments on preliminary draft BA received from 

USFWS. 

October 23, 2001 Meeting with NMFS and USFWS to discuss comments on 

preliminary draft BA. 

January 25, 2002 Conference call with USFWS to discuss status of ESA 

consultation and proposed action description. 

March 18, 2002 Meeting with USFWS to discuss status of ESA 

consultation. 

July 23, 2002 Meeting with NMFS and USFWS to describe the proposed 

action and operations at the three Deschutes River basin 

projects: Deschutes, Crooked River, and Wapinitia 

Projects. 

September 10, 2002 Meeting with NMFS and USFWS to discuss draft 

environmental baseline sections. 

October 22, 2002 Reclamation and USFWS meeting with CTWSRO to 

discuss ESA consultation. 

November 19, 2002 Meeting with NMFS and USFWS to discuss draft proposed 

action chapter and modeled hydrologic effects analysis. 

January 8, 2003 Conference call with NMFS and USFWS to further discuss 

the draft proposed action chapter and the modeled 

hydrologic effects analysis. 

February 6, 2003 Conference call with NMFS and USFWS to discuss ESA 

consultation status. 

February 26, 2003 Written comments on draft proposed action and hydrologic 

effects analysis received from USFWS. 

June 16, 2003 Reclamation response to USFWS written comments on 

draft proposed action and hydrologic effects analysis sent 

to USFWS. 

September 2003 – Final 1-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

1.4.1 Previous ESA Consultations 

Reclamation has consulted under Section 7 of ESA for various projects, programs, 

activities, and funding assistance in the Deschutes River basin that may have had direct 

or indirect effects on listed threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats, 

as applicable (Table 1-1). These projects have included: 

• Safety of dams construction activities 

• Habitat enhancement projects 

• Resource management plans 

• Water conservation demonstration projects 

• Geological investigations 

These actions, as implemented, are part of the environmental baseline for this 

consultation in the project area. A few Section 7 consultations have also been 

documented in environmental assessments (EA) or categorical exclusion checklists where 

there were either no effects or no adverse effects on listed species. Table 1-1 is a partial 

list of Section 7 ESA consultations that have occurred since 1991. 

Table 1-1. Partial List of Previous ESA Section 7 Consultations 

for Reclamation Actions in the Deschutes River Basin 

Project Name and 

(Document) Listed Species Consultation 

Results Service’s Determination 

Upper Deschutes River Basin 

Water Conservation Project 

(Informal Consultation 1991) 

Bald Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

No Effect Informal Consultation - no 

written response 

Arthur R. Bowman Safety of 

Dams Program, Crooked 

River Project (BA 1991) 

Bald Eagle No Effect USFWS March 1, 1991 B 

Concurrence 

Prineville Reservoir Resource 

Management Plan, Crooked 

River Project 

(BA 1992) 

Bald Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

No Effect USFWS March 10, 1992 B 

Concurrence 

Ochoco Safety of Dams 

Program, Crooked River 

Project (BA 1993) 

Bald Eagle No Effect No response 

On-farm Water Conservation 

Demonstration Project in 

Upper Deschutes Basin 

(Informal Consultation 1993) 

Bald Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

No Effect Informal Consultation - no 

written response 

Deschutes River Basin Water 

Conservation Demonstration 

Project (Informal Consultation 

1996) 

Bald Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

No Effect Informal Consultation - no 

written response 

Geological Investigation at 

Wickiup Dam (BE 1998) 

Bald Eagle No Effect Informal Consultation - no 

written response 

1-6 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Project Name and 

(Document) Listed Species Consultation Results Service’s Determination 

Wasco Safety of Dams 

Program, Wapinitia Project 

(BA 1999) 

Bald Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

N. Spotted Owl 

No Adverse Effect USFWS April 15, 1999 B 

Concurrence 

Bend Feed Canal Pipeline 

Replacement, Tumalo 

Irrigation District (EA 2000) 

Bald Eagle 

Bull Trout 

No Effect No response 

Juniper Flats No-Till – DRC* 

(Informal Consultation 2000) 

Steelhead No Effect NMFS Feb. 8, 2000 B 

Concurrence 

Macks Canyon – DRC* 

(Informal Consultation 2000) 

Steelhead No Adverse Effect NMFS Feb, 24, 2000 B 

Concurrence 

Ten Mile Creek Riparian 

Fencing – DRC* (Informal 

Consultation 2000) 

Steelhead 

Bald Eagle 

No Adverse Effect 

No Effect 

NMFS May 30, 2000 B 

Concurrence 

Trout Creek Infiltration Gallery 

- DRC (BA 2000)* 

Steelhead 

Bald Eagle 

No Adverse Effect NMFS June 9, 2000 B 

Concurrence 

USFWS - informal response B 

Concurrence 

Rhode Infiltration Gallery - 

DRC (Informal Consultation 

10/00)* 

 Steelhead No Adverse Effect NMFS - informal response B 

Concurrence 

NUID Supplemental Irrigation 

Water, Crooked River Project 

(Informal Consultation 2001) 

Steelhead 

Bald Eagle 

Bull Trout 

No Adverse Effect NMFS - informal response B 

Concurrence 

USFWS – no record of 

response 

Higgins Creek – DRC 

(Informal Consultation 2001)* 

Steelhead 

EFH 

No Effect 

No Effect 

No response 

Wickiup Safety of Dams 

Modification, Deschutes 

Project 

(EA/BA 2000) 

Bald Eagle 

Canada Lynx 

Oregon Spotted Frog, 

a candidate species 

No Adverse Effect 

Adverse Effect, 

mitigation provided 

USFWS August 4, 2000 B 

Concurrence 

Prineville Reservoir Resource 

Management Plan, Crooked 

River Project 

(EA/BA 2003) 

Bald Eagle 

Canada Lynx 

Oregon Spotted Frog, 

a candidate species 

No Adverse Effect 

No Effect 

No Effect 

USFWS May 5, 2003 B 

Concurrence 

* Project partially funded by Reclamation. 

BA = Biological Assessment; BE = Biological Evaluation; EA = Environmental Assessment; DRC = Deschutes 

Resources Conservancy 

September 2003 – Final 1-7 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

1.4.2 Future Consultations 

It is likely that Reclamation will continue to evaluate, seek funding for, and implement 

projects, programs, and activities within the Deschutes River basin similar to those 

displayed in Table 1-1. Reclamation will continue to pursue those actions that will meet 

contractual obligations, water management goals, and facility O&M needs in the 

Deschutes River basin. 

As specific actions are identified, Reclamation will continue to comply as required with 

the consultation requirements of Section 7 of ESA. 

1.5 ESA-LISTED SPECIES EVALUATED IN THIS BA 

This ESA consultation determines the effects of the proposed action on species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA. NMFS and USFWS most recently provided 

lists of ESA listed, proposed, and candidate species and species of concern by return 

letters dated July 3, 2002 and June 28, 2003 (see Appendix A). The lists contain species 

that are potentially present in the action area or potentially affected by Reclamation water 

operations in the Deschutes River basin. ESA-listed species evaluated in this BA 

include: 

•	 Bald eagle, a threatened species 

•	 Bull trout, a threatened species 

•	 Middle Columbia River steelhead, a threatened species 

•	 Canada lynx, a threatened species 

•	 Northern spotted owl, a threatened species 

1.6 ARRANGEMENT OF THIS BA 

The arrangement of this BA starts with an overview and proceeds with a discussion of the 

proposed action, description of the environmental baseline, analysis of the effects of 

Reclamation actions, and an appendix of information. The focus of each chapter is 

summarized below: 

•	 Chapter 1 provides background and sets the stage for the ESA Section 7 

consultation. 

•	 Chapter 2 describes the proposed action, which is continuing current ongoing 

O&M of Federal Reclamation project facilities in the Deschutes River basin. 

•	 Chapter 3 discusses the existing and historic hydrologic conditions and a general 

history of irrigation development in the Deschutes River basin. 

1-8 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

•	 Chapter 4 provides information on ESA-listed species potentially affected by the 

proposed action. 

•	 Chapter 5 provides information on the environmental baseline, including past and 

present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities 

in the action area to ESA-listed species. 

•	 Chapter 6 discusses the effects of the proposed action on the various ESA-listed 

species and any designated habitat. 

•	 Chapter 7 discusses the cumulative effects of future non-Federal, state, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. 

•	 Chapter 8 provides a summary of the proposed action effects including a 

determination for each species. 

•	 Chapter 9 is Reclamation’s evaluation of the proposed action effects on essential 

fish habitat. 

•	 Chapter 10 is a list of literature cited. 

September 2003 – Final 1-9 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

1-10 September 2003 – Final 
 

CHAPTER 2.0
 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides information and references materials that describe the proposed 

action. The proposed action is the continuance of the current O&M programs for 

Reclamation project facilities in the Deschutes River basin. Reclamation projects 

included in this consultation are the Deschutes Project in the upper Deschutes River 

basin; the Crooked River Project in the Crooked River subbasin; and the Wapinitia 

Project located in the White River subbasin, tributary to the lower Deschutes River. The 

Operations Description of the Deschutes River Basin Projects report (Reclamation 

2003a) provides a comprehensive description of Project operations and hydrologic 

conditions. 

2.1.1 Federal Facilities Included in the Proposed Action 

A list of storage and diversion facilities associated with the three projects is provided in 

Table 2-1. Not all of the facilities listed in Table 2-1 are included in the proposed action. 

Reclamation holds title to only some of the diversion facilities within the Federal 

Reclamation projects; water rights related to most of the Federal facilities are primarily 

held by the respective irrigation districts. The Oregon State Watermaster oversees the 

delivery of water from these facilities according to existing water rights and consistent 

with state water law. Further, actual day-to-day operations are conducted by the primary 

irrigation districts associated with these Federal projects. 

This consultation involves O&M activities associated with those facilities for which 

Reclamation has authority to operate, largely defined by Reclamation ownership. 

Storage, diversion, and delivery facilities comprising the proposed action include: 

Deschutes Project 

• Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir 

• Wickiup Dam and Reservoir 

• Haystack Dam and Reservoir 

• North Unit Headworks and Main Canal 

• Distribution system for NUID project lands 

September 2003 – Final 2-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crooked River Project 

•	 Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir 

•	 Crooked River Diversion Dam and Feed Canal 

•	 Crooked River Distribution Canal 

•	 Barnes Butte and Ochoco Relift Pumping Plants 

•	 Nine small pumping plants and associated canals 

Wapinitia Project 

•	 Wasco Dam and Clear Lake 

Other facilities associated with the Federal Reclamation projects are owned, operated, 

and maintained by the irrigation districts or other parties. Reclamation has no authority 

in directing operations associated with these private facilities. Limited actions associated 

with these facilities are interrelated and interdependent to the proposed action in this 

consultation and include: 

•	 Diversion of Crane Prairie Reservoir storage water by Arnold, Central Oregon, 

and Lone Pine Irrigation Districts 

•	 Diversion of natural flow water into the North Unit Main Canal by NUID 

•	 Diversion of water from the Crooked River by NUID’s Crooked River Pumping 

Plant 

•	 Storage, flood control operations, release, and diversion of Ochoco Reservoir 

storage water by OID 

•	 Diversion of natural flow from the Crooked River by the Crooked River 

Diversion Dam
 

•	 Conveyance of Prineville Reservoir storage water into diversion facilities owned 

by OID 

•	 Diversions of Prineville Reservoir storage water by privately-owned canals, 

including Rice Baldwin, Central Ditch, Lowline Ditch, and People’s Ditch 

•	 Diversion of Clear Lake storage water by JFDIC’s Clear Creek Diversion. 

2-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 2-1. Major Facilities Associated with Federal 

Projects in the Deschutes River Basin 

Facility Ownership Stream Year 

Constructed or 

Rehabilitated 

Entity 

Responsible 

for O&M 

Comments 

DESCHUTES RIVER PROJECT 

Crane Prairie Dam and 

Reservoir 

United 

States 

Deschutes 

River 

1940 COID 

(Transferred)1 55,300 acre-feet active 

storage 

Wickiup Dam and 

Reservoir 

United 

States 

Deschutes 

River 

1949 NUID 

(Transferred) 

200,000 acre-feet 

active storage 

Haystack Dam and 

Equalizing Reservoir 

United 

States 

Off-stream 1957 NUID 

(Transferred) 

5,600 acre-feet active 

storage 

Arnold Diversion Dam 

and Canal 

Arnold ID Deschutes 

River 

1951 Arnold ID Diverts Deschutes 

River water comprised 

of storage from Crane 

Prairie Reservoir and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights. 

Central Oregon 

Diversion Dam and 

Canal 

COID Deschutes 

River 

1900 COID Diverts Deschutes 

River water comprised 

of storage from Crane 

Prairie Reservoir and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights. 

North Canal Dam Private Deschutes 

River 

1912-1914 Private - Owner not 

established 

North Unit Headworks 

and Main Canal 

United 

States 

Deschutes 

River 

1949 NUID 

(Transferred) 

Diverts Deschutes 

River water comprised 

of storage from 

Wickiup Reservoir and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights. 

North Canal Diversion 

Dam and Pilot Butte 

Canal 

COID Deschutes 

River 

1900 COID Diverts Deschutes 

River water comprised 

of storage from Crane 

Prairie Reservoir and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights. 

Crooked River 

Pumping Plant 

NUID Crooked River 1968 NUID Diverts Crooked River 

water using water right 

held by NUID and 

delivers to Deschutes 

Project lands and to 

non-Project Crooked 

River lands. 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT 

Arthur R. Bowman 

Dam and Prineville 

Reservoir 

United 

States 

Crooked River 1961 OID 

(Reserved2

) 

148,640 acre-feet 

active storage 

(150,216 acre-feet 

storage capacity) 

Ochoco Dam and 

Reservoir 

OID Ochoco Creek 1918-1920; 1950; 

1995 

OID 39,000 acre-feet active 

storage 

5,266 acre-feet storage 

accessed by pump 

September 2003 – Final 2-3 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Facility Ownership Stream Year 

Constructed or 

Rehabilitated 

Entity 

Responsible 

for O&M 

Comments 

Crooked River 

Diversion Dam and 

Feed Canal 

United 

States 

Crooked River 1961; 2000 OID 

(Transferred) 

Diverts Crooked River 

Water comprised of 

Prineville Reservoir 

storage water and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights. 

Barnes Butte and 

Ochoco Relift Pumping 

Plants 

United 

States 

Off-stream 1961 OID 

(Transferred) 

Pumps water from 

Crooked River Feed 

Canal to Crooked 

River Distribution 

Canal and Ochoco 

Main Canal, 

respectively. 

Crooked River 

Distribution Canal 

United 

States 

Off-stream 1961 OID 

(Transferred) 

Distributes Crooked 

River water to OID 

project lands 

Central Ditch 

People’s Ditch 

Rice Baldwin Ditch 

Lowline Ditch 

All Private Crooked River All Private Diverts Crooked River 

water comprised of 

Prineville Reservoir 

storage water and 

privately-held natural 

flow water rights 

Ochoco Main Canal OID Ochoco Creek 1917 OID Diverts water from 

Ochoco Dam 

9 small pumping plants 

and distribution canals 

United 

States 

Off-stream Various OID 

(Transferred) 

Pumps water from 

Crooked River 

Distribution Canal or 

Ochoco Main Canal 

into distribution canals. 

Rye Grass Canal OID Ochoco Creek 1897 OID Diverts from Ochoco 

Creek and captures 

return flows in the 

system. 

WAPINITIA PROJECT 

Wasco Dam and 

Clear Lake 

United 

States 

Clear Creek 

(White River 

tributary) 

1959 JFDIC 

(Transferred) 

11,900 acre-feet active 

storage 

Clear Creek Diversion 

Dam 

JFDIC Frog Creek 

and Clear 

Creek 

Unknown JFDIC 

1

 “Transferred Works” are facilities in which daily responsibility for O&M activities are transferred to and financed by the 

irrigation district. 

2 “Reserved Works” are facilities in which the O&M is the responsibility of the United States. Daily O&M responsibility 

may be contracted to another entity, but the United States maintains the financial responsibility. 

2-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reclamation facilities may be transferred or reserved works. Transferred works mean 

that daily operation and maintenance activities have been transferred to and are financed 

by the contracting entity (usually an irrigation district), but the ownership remains with 

the U.S. Government. 

Reserved works, typically dams and reservoirs which serve more than one function, are 

operated and maintained by Reclamation, either directly or by contract with one or more 

irrigation districts. Reclamation maintains financial responsibility and collects O&M 

costs from contracting entities who receive water from that project. All of the Federal 

facilities included in the proposed action are transferred works, with the exception of 

Bowman Dam in the Crooked River Project which is a reserved work operated by OID 

under contract. 

Reclamation conducts regular inspections of dams that it has jurisdiction over to ensure 

that structural integrity, safety, and maintenance requirements are met by the designated 

operating entities. Reclamation provides runoff forecasts to dam operators and at times 

requires specific operations to protect the facility. 

Reclamation’s water management is dictated by its authorities, annual water supply, 

water rights, contracts, and irrigation demand. An explanation of how Reclamation 

operates the water storage and delivery system is lengthy. This BA provides a summary 

of these operations and refers to accompanying documents that provide more detailed 

information. 

Operations Description of the Deschutes River Basin Projects [Reclamation 2003a] 

(Operations Report) 

The Operations Report describes O&M activities at Reclamation’s Deschutes, Crooked 

River, and Wapinitia Projects. A comprehensive overview is provided about irrigation 

development, associated facilities, project authorizations, water rights, contracts, and 

general system operation for each project. Information contained in this report is 

referenced throughout this chapter. 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Operating strategies for Reclamation projects are based on legal and statutory 

requirements, including Congressional authorizing legislation, state water law, and 

contractual obligations. Specific legal and statutory requirements for each of the projects 

are described later in this chapter in Section 2.3. All Reclamation projects in the 

Deschutes River basin are authorized for the purpose of irrigation, primarily to develop 

more reliable water supplies. Legislation subsequent to the 1902 and 1939 Reclamation 

September 2003 – Final 2-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Acts also authorizes some storage facilities to be used for flood control, limited 

recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. In addition, all dams must be operated in a 

manner that protects them from potential failure. These three purposes—irrigation water 

supply, flood control, and preservation of the dam—are the primary strategies for 

operating the reservoirs. General operating strategies for achieving these purposes are 

summarized below. 

2.2.1 General Operations 

Reservoirs that are operated for irrigation and flood control have three major operating 

seasons: 

•	 Winter operations (approximately November – early March) — There are no 

releases for irrigation; low winter releases are made. A specific amount of space 

may be required to control potential winter rain-on-snow or other flooding events. 

Water is released, if necessary, to achieve or maintain the required space. Space 

may also be required during this period in anticipation of spring runoff from 

melting snow. Typically, irrigation demand has drawn the reservoirs well below 

winter/spring flood control levels and they refill during the winter until reaching 

flood control levels. 

•	 Spring flood control and/or refill (approximately March – June) — 

Reservoirs without flood control obligations store available inflow. Reservoirs 

with flood control operations are maintained to help control runoff, with releases 

dependent on the forecast runoff volume and timing. These reservoirs are filled 

for irrigation water supply as the runoff diminishes and generally reach their 

highest surface level in May. In the Deschutes River basin, Prineville Reservoir 

is the only Federally-owned reservoir officially operated for formal flood control 

in this manner. 

•	 Summer drawdown season (approximately June – October) — This season 

begins when natural flow is insufficient to meet irrigation demand, i.e., inflow is 

less than the demand. Release of storage (drafting of the reservoir) is required to 

meet the demands. In dry years, drawdown may begin before June. 

2.2.1.1 Flood Control 

Many Reclamation storage facilities are operated for flood protection by drafting the 

reservoir during non-flooding periods to provide space to store high flows that result 

from rainfall and snowmelt. Flood control operations may be formal or informal. Formal 

flood control means that operating criteria were developed under Section 7 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1944. In practice, the Corps and Reclamation jointly develop the criteria 

2-6 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

in a manner that balances flood control potential with irrigation water supply potential. 

Bowman Dam and Ochoco Dam are the only dams in the Deschutes River basin operated 

under formal flood control rules and signed agreements. Informal flood control follows 

operating rules developed by Reclamation and does not involve coordination with the 

Corps. 

2.2.1.2 Incidental Operations 

Operations do consider recreation and fish and wildlife needs, although they are 

secondary or incidental to operation for irrigation and flood control. 

2.2.1.3 Special Operational Requests 

There are instances when Reclamation can accommodate a special request for a change in 

routine operations while still meeting primary requirements. Sometimes these 

operational changes are made in response to emergency circumstances. For example: 

•	 Reservoir releases may be reduced temporarily to improve the likelihood of 

finding a drowned victim. 

•	 Water releases may be changed in response to unexpected equipment malfunction 

or breakdown. 

•	 River flows may be reduced temporarily for construction of bridges, placement of 

stream gages, and installation of shoreline revetments. 

In these instances, Reclamation would look for an opportunity to release needed storage 

from another reservoir. 

Within applicable constraints, Reclamation has altered operational approaches to improve 

conditions for fish and wildlife or the environment. These changes are implemented 

consistent with Reclamation’s authorities, state water law, and only if contractual 

obligations and public safety are not impacted. 

Specific operation of Reclamation facilities comprising the proposed action are 

summarized in the remainder of this chapter. A detailed description is provided in the 

Operations Report and is referenced as appropriate. 

2.2.2 Deschutes Project Operations 

The Deschutes Project lands stretch north and northeast from the city of Bend to Madras, 

Oregon (Figure 2-1). Approximately 85,000 acres are irrigated to produce grain, hay, 

mint, potatoes, seeds, and irrigated pasture. Additional lands are irrigated in the area 

September 2003 – Final 2-7 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

using privately developed water supplies. Principal federally-owned features included in 

the proposed action are Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir, Wickiup Dam and Reservoir, 

Haystack Dam and Reservoir, and North Unit Headworks and Main Canal. Total active 

capacity of the Federal reservoirs is 255,300 acre-feet. In addition, Haystack Reservoir 

functions as a re-regulating reservoir and temporarily restores water transported in the 

irrigation system. 

Four irrigation districts have contracts for this storage water, including NUID, COID, 

Lone Pine Irrigation District (also known as Crook County Improvement District No. 1), 

and Arnold Irrigation District. Arnold, Lone Pine, and Central Oregon Irrigation 

Districts use storage in Crane Prairie Reservoir to supplement water supplies obtained 

from other privately developed sources. COID irrigates about 45,000 acres; Lone Pine 

ID irrigates about 2,400 acres; and Arnold ID irrigates about 4,400 acres. All diversion 

and distribution facilities for these three irrigation districts are privately owned and 

operated. The water right to divert the stored water is privately held. The proposed 

action includes storing water in and releasing water from Crane Prairie Reservoir for 

diversion at several privately-owned diversions. Diversion of stored water by COID, 

Lone Pine ID, and Arnold ID is an interrelated and interdependent action. 

NUID uses storage in Wickiup and Haystack Reservoirs to provide a full supply of water 

to irrigate its lands. Project water is used to irrigate about 50,000 acres. NUID irrigates 

an additional 8,800 acres using non-project water obtained from water pumped from the 

Crooked River. The pumping of Crooked River water is interrelated and interdependent 

to the proposed action. 

To summarize, the following project operations are included in the proposed action. 

Refer to pages 32-49 in the Operations Report for a more detailed description. 

•	 Storage in and release of water from Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir for 

diversion (an interrelated and interdependent action is diversion of storage water 

by private facilities) 

•	 Storage in and release of water from Wickiup Dam and Reservoir for diversion 

•	 Diversion of Wickiup Reservoir storage water by North Unit Headworks and 

Main Canal (an interrelated and interdependent action is the diversion of natural 

flow water) 

•	 Storage in and release of water from Haystack Dam and Reservoir for diversion 

2-8 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: 

USBR PN Region 8/6/2002 

Swalley Canal 

Wickiup Dam 

Crane Prairie Dam 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Wickiup Reservoir 

Central Oregon 

Canal 

Arnold Canal 

D

e

s

c

h

u

t e s

Ri v e r 

Dry Creek 

Haystack Dam 

and Reservoir 

Arnold Flume 

and Headworks 

C r e s c e n t Cr e e k 

P a u l i n a C r e e k 

Lake Billy Chinook 

Lake Simtustus 

Waldo Lake 

Davis Lake Odell Lake 

Crescent 

Lake 

Paulina Lake 

East Lake 

Cultus Lake 

Lava Lake 

North

Unit 

Main 

Canal 

Cougar Reservoir 

Canal 

Pilot

Butte 

East Dike 

Madras 

Metolius Metolius 

Culver

Terrebonne Terrebonne 

Sisters Sisters

Redmond Redmond 

Prineville Prineville

Bend

Opal City Opal City 

Crooked River 

Pumping Plant 

Metolius River 

Central Oregon 

Diversion Dam 

Deschutes Project, Oregon 

Major Facilities 

Croo ked River 

Shitike Creek Warm Springs Warm Springs 

Squaw Creek 

Trout Cre ek 

26 

20 

97 

20 

Flume 

Dams 

Canals 

Streams 

Lakes and Reservoirs 

Pumping Plant 

Facilities with U.S. ownership 

are highlighted in green 

Little Deschute s River 

26 

North Canal Dam 

0 5 10 20

Miles 

North Unit Main Canal 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

Figure 2-1
 
September 2003 – Final 2-10 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.2.2.1 Storage and Delivery of Water 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs store water for use in the Deschutes Project and are 

operated together as a combined system. The operation of these two reservoirs is 

generally governed by the January 4, 1938, inter-district contract and the water rights 

associated with storage of the Deschutes River water. 

The inter-district contract stipulates the priority for storing water between the two 

reservoirs. Following the irrigation season, water can be stored in Crane Prairie 

Reservoir at any time or at any rate provided that storage is below 30,000 acre-feet. After 

storage has reached 30,000 acre-feet, inflow is bypassed to Wickiup Reservoir until 

storage in Wickiup Reservoir reaches 180,000 acre-feet, at which time storage is resumed 

at Crane Prairie Reservoir until a total of 45,000 acre-feet of storage is filled. Wickiup 

Reservoir is then filled to a total of 200,000 acre-feet (full pool) prior to further filling of 

Crane Prairie Reservoir. 

Crane Prairie Reservoir has a maximum storage capacity of 50,000 acre-feet, of which 

30,000 acre-feet is identified as “reliable storage supply” in the inter-district contract, and 

20,000 acre-feet is identified as “surplus water available.” Table 2-2 shows the storage is 

allocated as follows: 

Table 2-2. Crane Prairie Reservoir Storage Allocation 

District Allocation of Reliable 

Storage Supply 

(acre-feet) 

Allocation of Surplus 

Storage 

(acre-feet) 

Total Allocation 

(acre-feet) 

Lone Pine ID 10,500 10,500 

Arnold ID 10,500 3,000 13,500 

COID 9,000 17,000 26,000 

TOTAL 30,000 20,000 50,000 

September 2003 – Final 2-11 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Allocation of the surplus storage water is complex. Of the first 15,000 acre-feet, 1/5 

accrues to Arnold ID, up to a maximum of 3,000 acre-feet, and 4/5 accrues to COID, up 

to a maximum of 12,000 acre-feet. The remainder of the surplus storage (5,000 acre-feet) 

accrues to COID. 

At the time of the inter-district contract, it was anticipated that the capacity of Crane 

Prairie Reservoir would be 50,000 acre-feet. The actual capacity of the reservoir is 

55,300 acre-feet. In the wettest years water is stored above 50,000 acre-feet, but only 

after Wickiup Reservoir has reached or is assured to reach full capacity of 200,000 acrefeet. Any water stored above 50,000 acre-feet is released during the subsequent irrigation 

season as excess flow (above irrigation demand) to augment the Deschutes River in the 

Bend area (Gorman 2002). 

Reservoir refill operations are managed to maximize storage each year and maintain to 

the extent possible uniform flows below each reservoir. With modern satellite 

telemetered reservoir outflows and snowpack measurements, operations are becoming 

more responsive to changes in water conditions through the winter. Typically, the 

irrigation season ends and storage commences in October. 

Reservoir outflows are determined after considering the amount of reservoir storage and 

the present inflow. Daily changes on the river are organized by the Watermaster, an 

OWRD employee, to meet storage requirements and irrigation demands. Irrigation 

personnel are contacted to implement the changes in releases at the projects. 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams are operated under informal flood control rules, which 

are rarely invoked. The reservoirs undergo an annual review of hydrologic conditions as 

they approach full capacity. If the review indicates elevated inflow is likely, a flood plan 

is developed by Reclamation in cooperation with the irrigation districts and the Oregon 

State Watermaster. 

2-12 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir Operation 

Reclamation has title to Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir; however, as a transferred 

work, daily O&M is the responsibility of COID personnel. Reclamation owns no water 

rights for storing or diverting Crane Prairie stored water. 

Irrigation releases typically begin by mid-to-late April. Nonirrigation releases may occur 

earlier if the reservoir is full and must pass inflow. The reservoir does not typically begin 

to draft appreciably until late May or early June. Irrigation releases typically peak in 

June and July between 200 cfs and 500 cfs, but can be higher or lower depending on the 

water supply. In dry years, lower flows are maintained in order to stretch the water 

supply over the entire season. An effort is made to set a summer flow that can be 

maintained without constant adjustments. Releases are typically reduced to minimum 

downstream flows in late October or early November. Although Crane Prairie Reservoir 

has no minimum flow requirements, the watermaster and the irrigation districts have a 

non-binding agreement to release a minimum of 30 cfs to protect instream resources. 

Winter flows below Crane Prairie Dam are often higher than this in all but the driest 

years. 

Table 2-3 summarizes operations at Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir. Table 2-4 shows 

the average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1990 to 2001 below Crane Prairie 

Dam. From the table, the 90 percent exceedance for October was 64 cfs, meaning that 90 

percent of the time average monthly October flows equal or exceed 64 cfs. Figure 2-2 

and Figure 2-3 show annual hydrographs of river flows below Crane Prairie Dam for the 

period 1991 through 2001, which includes dry and wet year sequences. 

September 2003 – Final 2-13 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 2-3. Summary of Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir Operations 

Item Comment 

Releases 

30 cfs Informal (non-binding) minimum release by agreement of watermaster and 

irrigation districts. 

200-500 cfs Typical peak irrigation release. 

Rate of rise (maximum) No standard ramping rate as it depends on the flows, trying not to make 

sudden changes. 

Rate of drop (maximum) No standard ramping rate as it depends on the flows, trying not to make 

sudden changes. 

Reservoir Content 

Minimum pool None required; typically stays above 10,000 acre-feet. Recorded minimum 

of 9,470 acre-feet in 1980.1 

24,000 acre-feet Average end-of-September carryover (1961-2001 period of record). 

30,000 acre-feet Maximum storage level until Wickiup Reservoir reaches 180,000 acre-feet 

45,000 acre-feet Maximum storage level until Wickiup Reservoir reaches 200,000 acre-feet 

55,300 acre-feet Full pool; achieved in about 1 out of every 3 years 

Allocation of Reservoir Content 

COID 26,000 acre-feet 

Arnold ID 13,500 acre-feet 

Lone Pine ID 10,500 acre-feet 

1

1961 - 2002 period of record. For the period 1925-1960, the reservoir reached empty or near empty in 14 of the 

years, with the latest occurring in 1950. 

Table 2-4. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance 

below Crane Prairie Dam, Deschutes River Basin 

Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent 

Exceedance 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Deschutes River 

Below: 

Crane Prairie Res. 

(water years 

1990-2001) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

64 

195 

432 

45 

163 

338 

51 

132 

302 

74 

126 

427 

45 

124 

333 

29 

151 

310 

65 

148 

264 

160 

271 

525 

131 

268 

578 

134 

269 

536 

117 

271 

503 

109 

276 

487 

* Information from http://pn.usbr.gov/hydromet/index.html 

2-14 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 2-2. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, 1991-1995 (dry year series) 

September 2003 – Final 2-15 
1000 

800 

c 600 

F 

s 400 

200 

\ 

.!....V..1 i 

L 

rx_ 

..l ' '--" 

IV 

rJ 

\ 

\ p- \ 

r:f "--., I 

fl-lli/IL v 

j \ r 

rl ._, 

\-, u N D , 

--......_, 

r' 

r 

l 

':-J r-.. 'L 

L l 

. If 

I r -

0 . 0 C T . N 0 V . 0 E C . JAN . F E 8 . MA . A P R . MAY . J U N . J U L . AUG . 

1 DESCHUTES BELOW CRANE PRAIRIE RESERVOIR ELEV=4420

CRAO QO 1996 QD 1997 QD 1998 QO 1999 QD 2000 QD 2001 

Figure 2-3. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, 1996-2001 (wet year series) 

September 2003 – Final 2-16 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Wickiup Dam and Reservoir Operation 

NUID operates Wickiup Dam and Reservoir according to the terms of the inter-district 

contract described earlier. Day-to-day operations are directed by the Watermaster to 

meet storage requirements and irrigation demands. Reclamation does not hold the water 

right for storing or diverting Wickiup stored water. 

The irrigation season extends from April 1 to October 31, with the reservoir typically 

beginning to refill by mid-October. The filling schedule must adhere to the terms of the 

inter-district contract, which allows Wickiup Reservoir to fill at any time and at any rate 

provided that storage is below 180,000 acre-feet, while meeting minimum downstream 

releases (discussed later in this chapter). After storage has reached 180,000 acre-feet, 

outflow from Crane Prairie Reservoir is curtailed until that reservoir reaches 45,000 acrefeet. Wickiup Reservoir is then filled to 200,000 acre-feet (full pool) prior to further 

filling of Crane Prairie Reservoir beyond 45,000 acre-feet. 

Irrigation releases typically begin by mid-April and the reservoir commences drafting. In 

wet years this can be delayed until early May, and in extremely wet years the reservoir 

may not draft until early June. Irrigation releases typically peak in July between about 

1,400 cfs and 1,600 cfs, but can be higher. Irrigation demand begins to diminish in 

September and releases are typically down to minimum flows by the middle of October. 

During the nonirrigation season, a minimum flow of 20 cfs is normally maintained at the 

gaging station about 1,000 feet downstream from Wickiup Dam. This minimum flow 

was established following a hearing held in September 1954 on the amended application 

to increase the storage in Wickiup Reservoir. The Oregon State Engineer identified a 

minimum release of 20 cfs for downstream conservation. Under normal storage 

conditions, this amount can be readily obtained from the downstream toe drain along the 

toe of the dam. Flows higher than 20 cfs can usually be supplied in a series of wet years 

without risk to refill (and thus to storage rights), as was the case from 1997 to 2001. 

Wickiup Dam and Reservoir operations are summarized in Table 2-5. Table 2-6 shows 

the average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1990 through 2001 below Wickiup 

Dam. From the table, the 90 percent exceedance for October was 215 cfs, meaning that 

90 percent of the time average monthly October flows equal or exceed 215 cfs. Figure 

2-4 and Figure 2-5 show annual hydrographs of river flows below Wickiup Dam for the 

period 1991 through 2001, which includes sequences of dry and wet years. 

September 2003 – Final 2-17 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 2-5. Summary of Wickiup Dam and Reservoir Operations 

Item Comment 

Releases 

20 cfs 

+200 cfs 

Minimum release by order of Oregon State Engineer in 1954 

Typical minimum release in wetter years (roughly 40 percent of years) 

1400-1600 cfs Typical peak irrigation release 

Rate of rise (maximum) Existing limits are 1 foot per hour, but watermaster voluntarily operates to 

1⁄2 foot per day. USFS proposed rates are 0.1 foot per 4-hours; adhered to 

when possible. Reservoir elevation, flood operations, and downstream 

conditions will dictate the release criteria. 

Rate of drop (maximum) Daily limits same as above. USFS proposed hourly limit is 0.2 foot per 12 

hours; adhered to when possible. 

Reservoir Content 

Minimum pool None required; typically stays above 25,000 acre-feet. Recent recorded 

minimum was 15,600 acre-feet (1994).1 

61,000 acre-feet Average end-of-September carryover. 

180,000 acre-feet Maximum storage limit until Crane Prairie Reservoir fills to 45,000 acrefeet. 

200,000 acre-feet Full pool; achieved or nearly achieved in approximately 70 percent of 

years. 

1 The reservoir reached 8,100 acre-feet and 8,800 acre-feet in 1955 and 1970, respectively, and reached 1,980 

acre-feet in 1952. 

Table 2-6. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance 

below Wickiup Dam, Deschutes River Basin* 

Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent 

Exceedance 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Deschutes River 

Below: 

Wickiup Res. 

(water years 

1990-2001) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

215 

493 

919 

20 

25 

710 

19 

36 

573 

17 

23 

914 

19 

33 

1053 

22 

94 

739 

101 

585 

784 

711 

1003 

1364 

899 

1294 

1557 

1209 

1458 

1772 

1237 

1419 

1630 

905 

1172 

1422 

* Information from http://pn.usbr.gov/hydromet/index.html 

2-18 September 2003 – Final 
 2200 

2000 

1800 1600 1400 

c 

1000 

s 800 

n 1 lfl 

1\ I )\ I r1\ 

'ri 

u M=IA

rm \ 

r II II 1/ 

' I w .rlr r \ 

rf l r 1 

M

IN 1\ I . JU I v I I 

600 

400 I L 

200' 1.r 

r1VU IJ lf J I hUr 

0 . 0 C T . N 0 V . 0 E C . JAN . F E 8 . MAR . A P R . MAY . J U N . J U L . AUG . S E P 

1 DESCHUTES BELOW WICKIUP ELEV=4257. WICO QO 1991 QO 1992 QO 1993 QO 1994 QO 1995 

Figure 2-4. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam (WICO), 1991-1995 (dry year series)

September 2003 – Final 2-19 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment Figure 2-5. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam (WICO), 1996-2001 (wet year series) 

2-20 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Haystack Dam and Reservoir Operation 

Haystack Dam and Reservoir is an off-stream storage facility. Because of the distance 

from Wickiup Reservoir to the NUID project lands (about 100 miles), the regulatory 

storage provided by Haystack Reservoir is required. Inflow to Haystack Reservoir is 

primarily provided by two diversions: (1) from the Deschutes River near Bend, Oregon, 

by means of North Unit Main Canal, and (2) the Crooked River Pumping Plant at a point 

where the North Unit Main Canal crosses the Crooked River. In addition, natural inflow 

can occur from Haystack Creek, although this is typically minor compared to the canal 

feeds. Infrequent rain-on-snow flood events are the only source of appreciable inflow 

from Haystack Creek. 

If the reservoir levels go into surcharge conditions (more than 100 percent full), Haystack 

Feeder Canal acts as a spillway for emergency releases. During the nonirrigation season, 

the Haystack Feeder Canal control gates are kept in the full open position as a precaution 

in order to insure the capability to bypass flood flows up to 800 cfs. 

During the irrigation season, which usually runs from early to mid-April through midOctober, the reservoir typically operates between elevations of about 2828 feet to 2841 

feet (2,900 acre-feet to 5,500 acre-feet) in order to supply irrigation releases. Operations 

follow a cyclic pattern where the reservoir is drafted and then refilled periodically to 

maintain its operating range. In October following the irrigation season, the reservoir is 

typically refilled to an elevation range of 2835 feet to 2838 feet (4,150 acre-feet to 4,750 

acre-feet). During the nonirrigation season, all outflows from the reservoir are curtailed 

and the reservoir is maintained at a fairly constant elevation until the following April. 

Because it is an off-stream reservoir and discharges to the NUID canal, there are no 

minimum flows or ramping rates associated with the operation of Haystack Reservoir. 

The typical minimum reservoir level of approximately 2,900 acre-feet is sufficient to 

maintain fishery and recreational resources associated with the reservoir. There is no 

established minimum pool. 

2.2.2.2 Diversion of Water 

The primary diversion point for Deschutes project water occurs at the North Canal Dam 

on the main Deschutes River near Bend at RM 164.8. Due to numerous changes in canal 

companies and ownerships over the years, it is unclear who owns North Canal Dam. 

However, it is clear that Reclamation does not own the feature, and therefore, bears no 

responsibility for the O&M of the dam. 

Four irrigation districts divert water into their respective canals at the North Canal Dam – 

NUID using the North Unit Main Canal, Lone Pine ID and COID using the North Canal 

September 2003 – Final 2-21 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

(also called the Pilot Butte Canal), and Swalley ID using the Swalley Canal. Only NUID, 

Lone Pine ID, and COID divert Federal project water. 

Diversion of Crane Prairie storage water by COID, Arnold ID, and Lone Pine ID occurs 

through privately owned and operated diversion facilities. Reclamation does not own or 

operate these diversion facilities or possess the diversion water rights. The Oregon State 

Watermaster regulates diversion of this water. Delivery and diversion of Crane Prairie 

storage water into these private facilities is interrelated and interdependent to the 

proposed action. 

The North Canal Dam is the last major diversion point for irrigation water from the 

Deschutes River, and marks the low flow point on the river just downstream of the dam. 

The diversion of natural and storage flows, mostly by private diversions, along with 

diversions of Deschutes project water essentially dewaters the Deschutes River by the 

time it passes the North Canal Dam. Irrigators early on recognized the need to provide a 

minimum release past the North Canal Dam, and since the early 1960s a non-binding 

“gentlemen’s agreement” among several of the major irrigation districts has provided at 

least 30 cfs. The parties to this agreement include NUID, COID, Tumalo ID, and 

Swalley ID. In addition to the 30 cfs, the Watermaster must pass about 5 cfs to meet 

several small irrigation demands further downstream. 

The DRC and other interested parties have made a significant effort in the last few years 

to improve flows past North Canal Dam (along with other locations in the basin) by 

leasing or purchasing water rights from traditional irrigation users. The combination of 

leases, “gentlemen’s agreements,” and irrigation flow totaled approximately 45 cfs 

passing North Canal Dam during the 2002 irrigation season. This “minimum” will vary 

from year-to-year depending on the water supply and demands and leasing arrangements 

negotiated. 

North Unit Headworks and Main Canal 

The North Unit Main Canal, with headworks located at North Canal Dam, is the principal 

water delivery feature for the Deschutes Project. This is the only federally-owned 

diversion facility associated with the Deschutes Project. The canal has a maximum 

diversion capacity of 1,100 cfs, although diversions during the irrigation season are 

generally from 247 cfs in October to 640 cfs in July. Annual average diversions are 

193,559 acre-feet/year (based on period of record from 1961-2000) which includes 

storage water from Wickiup Reservoir and natural flow water rights (LaMarche 2001). 

NUID has been able to reduce their peak demand and increase the reliability of their 

storage water through conservation and efficiency improvements. In the past, maximum 

diversion into the North Unit Main Canal was often at the 1,100 cfs capacity, where 

2-22 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

maximum demand now will typically call for about 800 cfs (although higher flows may 

sometimes be needed for short periods to keep the system in balance). 

The diversion contains a fish screen complex constructed in 1945 which does not meet 

current fish screening standards. Reclamation has completed preliminary designs to 

upgrade the fish screen to comply with current standards. 

The irrigation diversion season is generally April 1 to November 1. NUID diverts both 

natural flows and storage water into the North Unit Main Canal. Anytime natural flows 

on the Deschutes River are above about 1,500 cfs, as calculated by the Watermaster, 

some or all of NUID’s demands can be met from natural flows. However, NUID’s 

natural flow rights are junior to all major irrigators on the river, and once Deschutes 

River natural flows drop to 1,500 cfs or less, it relies entirely on storage water from 

Wickiup Reservoir. Because of this heavy reliance on stored water and the uncertainty of 

reservoir refill in future years, NUID operates in a very conservative manner to maximize 

the carryover water in Wickiup Reservoir. 

The average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1915 through 1991 below North 

Canal Dam are shown in Table 2-7. These flows reflect hydrologic effects of diversions 

associated with the proposed, interrelated and interdependent, and private actions. The 

diversion of natural flow rights by COID, Lone Pine ID, Arnold ID, Tumalo ID, and 

Swalley ID are not part of the proposed or interrelated and interdependent actions. 

Table 2-7. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance 

below North Canal Dam, Deschutes River Basin* 

Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent 

Exceedance 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Deschutes River 

Below: 

Bend 

(water years 

1915-1991) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

70 

241 

802 

372 

661 

1140 

450 

798 

1217 

482 

835 

1274 

478 

863 

1320 

441 

845 

1408 

88 

286 

1161 

34 

106 

680 

29 

106 

627 

29 

73 

352 

25 

83 

430 

26 

113 

512 

* Information from http://pn.usbr.gov/hydromet/index.html 

2.2.3 Crooked River Project Operations 

The Crooked River Project is located near Prineville, Oregon (Figure 2-6). About 23,000 

acres are irrigated using project water, with OID irrigating about 21,000 of those acres. 

A number of smaller irrigation associations or individual users irrigate less than 2,000 

acres with Prineville Reservoir storage water. Irrigated acres produce grain, hay, garlic, 

September 2003 – Final 2-23 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

turf, grass seed, mint, and irrigated pasture on farm units ranging in size from large 

livestock ranches to small suburban residential tracts. 

Principal federally-owned features included in the proposed action are Arthur R. 

Bowman Dam, Prineville Reservoir, and the Crooked River Diversion Dam, Feed Canal, 

and Distribution Canal. Additionally, Reclamation has title to several off-stream 

pumping plants and distribution canals within the OID irrigation system. Reclamation 

also holds a water right to store water behind Bowman Dam and divert the stored water 

into federally and privately-owned facilities. 

Ochoco Dam and Reservoir, which stores and releases Ochoco Creek water, is a 

privately-owned facility operated by OID. Reclamation does not hold the water right for 

storing or diverting Ochoco Creek water. However, operation of OID-owned facilities is 

coordinated with operation of Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir and other Federal 

facilities in the Crooked River Project; therefore, operations of OID-owned facilities are 

included as interrelated and interdependent activities in this consultation. 

The following is a brief summary of project operations included in the proposed action. 

Refer to pages 66-81 in the Operations Report for a detailed description. The proposed 

action includes: 

•	 Storage and release of water from Prineville Reservoir and Bowman Dam. 

•	 Diversion of Prineville Reservoir storage water by contractors into the Crooked 

River Feed Canal and other private facilities. (Diversion of natural flow water 

into the Crooked River Feed Canal is an interrelated and interdependent action.) 

•	 Conveyance of Prineville Reservoir storage water in federally-owned facilities 

2.2.3.1 Storage and Delivery of Water 

The total active capacity of Prineville Reservoir is 148,640 acre-feet. Prineville 

Reservoir serves as a primary water supply for some lands within OID, as well as a 

supplemental water supply to the district and other individuals. Additionally, OID relies 

on storage water in Ochoco Reservoir to provide primary and supplementary supplies of 

water to district members. Operations of Bowman Dam are part of the proposed action. 

Operations at Ochoco Dam are interrelated and interdependent to the proposed action. 

2-24 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crooked River Project, Oregon
 

Major Facilities
 

0 1.25 2.5 5

Miles 

Source: 

USBR PN Region 8/6/2002 

Dams 

Canals 

Streams 

Lakes and Reservoirs 

Pumping Facility 

Facilities with U.S. ownership 

are highlighted in green 

Johnson Creek Cana

O

l

cho co Main Canal 

Cro oked Rive r

Distribution C anal 

R y e Grass Canal 

Grimes Flat West Canal 

Ochoco Main Canal 

Gri mes Flat East

Canal 

Ochoco Dam 

Ochoco Reservoir 

Barnes Butte 

Pumping Plant 

Arthur R. Bowman Dam 

Prineville Reservoir 

Ochoco Relift Pumping Plant 

Och oc o

Creek 

Crooked River 

Dry Creek 

Ochoco Creek 

Crooked River 

Diversion Dam 

and Fish Screen 

To Redmond 

To Madras 

McKay

Cre e k 

Lytle Creek 

Diversion 

Lytl e

Creek 

26 

26 

Lytle C r eek D si tribution Canal 

Crooked River Diversio n Canal 

PrinevillePrineville 

Figure 2-6
 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2-26 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reclamation forecasts runoff for the Crooked River at Prineville Reservoir and Ochoco 

Creek at Ochoco Reservoir for effective utilization of storage space for flood control and 

water conservation. Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs are filled concurrently, based on 

runoff forecasts. 

Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir Operation 

Crooked River flows are comprised of winter snowfall and spring runoff in its upstream 

watershed and from spring flows as the river approaches its confluence with the 

Deschutes River. Upper Crooked River flows are highly variable, both seasonally and 

annually. This reach of the river is fed mostly by surface runoff, and soils are shallower 

and less porous than in the Deschutes River subbasin. Nearly all of the annual volume of 

reservoir inflow typically occurs during the December through June period (95 percent). 

Inflows from July through September account for less than 1 percent of the total, with 

inflows often less than 10 cfs. 

Prineville Reservoir has a much better refill probability than Ochoco Reservoir. 

Maximum fill occurs at Prineville Reservoir in approximately 3 out of 4 years, where 

Ochoco Reservoir only fills about 50 percent of the years. Therefore, priority is placed 

on using irrigation water from Prineville Reservoir to the maximum extent feasible, with 

Ochoco Reservoir releases made only to serve those lands with insufficient or no access 

to Prineville Reservoir water. 

Reclamation has contracted with OID to perform O&M at Bowman Dam and Prineville 

Reservoir. Reservoir releases are made by OID between April 1 and October 31 as 

required to meet irrigation demand. OID coordinates water delivery requests within the 

district and calls orders into the damtender who makes releases from Prineville Reservoir. 

Bowman Dam is operated under formal flood control rules and signed agreements. Flood 

control criteria at Bowman Dam involves flood control rule curves established by the 

Corps that prescribe the amount of reservoir space needed to control the predicted 

volume of runoff. A series of rule curves or tables determine the space requirement for a 

given water supply forecast on a particular date. Rule curves were developed using 

historic runoff, system storage potential, and downstream flow restrictions (i.e., 

downstream channel capacity). 

September 2003 – Final 2-27 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Flood control operation for Bowman Dam begins with no less than 60,000 acre-feet of 

evacuated space (equivalent to a maximum storage of 88,640 acre-feet of water) in 

Prineville Reservoir on November 15 through February 15. During this time, water may 

not be stored if only 60,000 acre-feet of space is vacant. After February 15, the reservoir 

can be filled as determined by a special forecast runoff equation and related established 

rule curve through April 30. Final fill may occur between April 1 and April 30 

depending on forecasted runoff volume. Once flood control space has been filled, flow 

begins to occur over the uncontrolled spillway crest. Releases from the outlet works are 

managed to minimize property damage. 

Authorizing legislation for the Crooked River Project mandates a minimum 10 cfs release 

through Prineville Reservoir. Currently, Reclamation maintains minimum releases 

ranging between 10-75 cfs below Bowman Dam. Storable inflows are bypassed if 

existing contractual obligations are not impacted. The lower flows in that range are 

released in drier years and extended drought conditions when refill of the reservoir is 

jeopardized. The uncontracted storage in Prineville Reservoir is used to achieve these 

releases. The legal mandated minimum release remains 10 cfs. 

Recreation on Prineville Reservoir is a consideration of current operations, although not 

specifically an authorized purpose. If sufficient storage exists and spaceholder contracts 

can be met, an attempt is made to keep enough water in Prineville Reservoir to maintain 

boat access at ramps at Prineville State Park through peak visitation periods (typically 

May - August). 

Table 2-8 summarizes operations at Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir. Table 2-9 

shows the average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1990 through 2001 below 

Bowman Dam (Prineville Reservoir). From the table, the 90 percent exceedance for 

October was 44 cfs, meaning that 90 percent of the time average monthly October flows 

equal or exceed 44 cfs. Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show annual hydrographs of river 

flows below Bowman Dam for the period 1991 through 2001, which includes sequences 

of dry and wet years. 

2-28 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 2-8. Summary of Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir Operations 

Item Comment 

Releases 

10 cfs Minimum authorized release 

30-35 cfs Typical informal minimum release during extreme drought, but may be as 

low as 10 cfs. 

75 cfs Informal minimum release target provided by bypassing inflows from 

Reclamation’s uncontracted storage space 

200-240 cfs Typical peak irrigation releases 

2,000 cfs Informal target, not to exceed for flood control; increased bank erosion 

above this level 

Rate of change (maximum) None 

Reservoir Content 

Minimum pool None required; recent recorded minimum pool was 22,450 acre-feet in 

1993. 

Maximum winter flood control pool 

(November 15 - February 15) 

88,640 acre-feet 

83,000 acre-feet Average end-of-October carryover storage 

148,640 acre-feet Full pool; achieved roughly 3 out of 4 years 

Table 2-9. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance below
 

Bowman Dam*, Crooked River 

Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Exceedance 

Crooked River 

Near: 

Prineville below 

Bowman Dam 

(water years 

1990-2001) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

44 

115 

297 

33 

74 

160 

31 

68 

782 

30 

65 

1308 

31 

91 

1636 

26 

218 

1548 

79 

373 

2742 

159 

249 

1022 

179 

228 

1090 

187 

222 

315 

196 

227 

372 

122 

206 

262 

* Information from http://pn.usbr.gov/hydromet/index.html 

September 2003 – Final 2-29 
3500 

'3000 

2500 

c 2000 

: 1500 

1000 

500 

,.r 

t=>. \ 

r\ "'' 

(\ )v 

· v 'f:l 

n 

\ 

,.--....._ 

\ _,..e, ../" _r

""""" 

0' OC T ' NOV' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY' JUN ' JUL ' AU

1 CROOKED RI VER NEAR PR INEVILLE ELEV=

r ' QD 1992 QD 199 3 QD 199 4 OD 1995 

Figure 2-7. Daily Average Flow (QD) for the Crooked River below Prineville Reservoir (PRVO), 1991-1995 (dry year series) 

September 2003 – Final 2-30 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 2-8. Daily Average Flows (QD) for the Crooked River below Prineville Reservoir (PVRO), 1996-2001(wet year series) 

September 2003 – Final 2-31 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.2.3.2 Diversion of Water 

Prineville Reservoir storage water is diverted primarily by the Crooked River Diversion 

Dam into the Feed Canal, located upstream from the city of Prineville at RM 56 on the 

Crooked River. This is the only federally-owned diversion facility on the Crooked River. 

In 2000, Reclamation constructed a new diversion weir, fish screen, and fish bypass and 

outfall structure to improve resident fish protection at the diversion. Design of the new 

features was reviewed and approved by the USFWS and ODFW. 

The canal capacity is 180 cfs. Average 1994 through 2001 flows diverted into the 

Crooked River Feed Canal are 50,985 acre-feet per water year, comprised of Prineville 

storage water and natural flow rights held by OID. Approximately 40 cfs bypasses this 

diversion to meet non-OID irrigation diversions with water rights to natural flows and/or 

contracted storage water, and to maintain flows in the Crooked River. OID and 

Reclamation have cooperatively made the non-binding decision to maintain at least 10 cfs 

through the low flow point on the Crooked River, roughly the stretch between the golf 

course near the city of Prineville to the confluence with Ochoco and McKay Creeks, to 

prevent the river from drying up. 

From the diversion dam, the Crooked River Feed Canal runs north 8.3 miles and is 

siphoned under Ochoco Creek to the Barnes Butte Pumping Plant, serving irrigable lands 

along its course. The Barnes Butte Pumping Plant lifts a maximum of 147 cfs from the 

end of the Feed Canal to the head of the 15.8-mile-long Crooked River Distribution 

Canal which runs through the center of district lands. Operation of the Barnes Butte 

Pumping Plant requires extra water to be diverted in the Feed Canal to allow continuous 

pump operation and avoid short cycling or potential pump damage. This extra water is 

spilled back into Ochoco Creek. 

The Ochoco Relift Pumping Plant is located on the Crooked River Distribution Canal at 

about mile 5 and lifts a portion of the flow to replenish the Ochoco Main Canal that 

serves lands east and west of McKay Creek. The distribution canal continues in a 

northwest direction, crossing McKay Creek at Reynolds Dam by siphon, where spills are 

made into the creek. The Crooked River Distribution Canal terminates at Lytle Creek, 

where the flows join any remaining spills coming from the Ochoco Main Canal and are 

routed down Lytle Creek to the Crooked River. In addition to the Barnes Butte and 

Ochoco Relift Pumping Plants, Reclamation has developed several smaller offstream 

pumping plants that distribute Project storage water and convey natural flow water (under 

a water right held by OID) to Crooked River project lands within OID’s boundaries. 

These pumping plants take water from the Crooked River Feed Canal, Distribution Canal, 

or Ochoco Main Canal as described in the Operations Report on pages 60-62. 

2-32 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

OID has strived to modify its diversion operations and facilities to improve fish passage 

and habitat by enhancing instream fish passage, minimizing diversion of fish into canals, 

and improving instumentation at existing streamflow gaging sites through partnerships 

with a wide variety of entities. Some examples include: 

•	 Design and construction of several infiltration galleries, 

•	 Replacement of outdated weirs with advanced inverted weirs to allow fish 

passage, 

•	 Construction of several siphons which separate the irrigation ditch from the 

stream to avoid dewatering or chemical contamination of the creek, 

•	 Upgrades on numerous gaging (streamflow monitoring) stations to include 

temperature monitoring; and 

•	 Construction of year-round fish ladders. 

OID has also strived to eliminate virtually all of its diversion dams that have historically 

blocked fish passage. 

2.2.4 Wapinitia Project Operations 

The Wapinitia Project consists of approximately 2,100 acres of irrigated lands in the 

White River subbasin (Figure 2-9). The Wapinitia Project, Juniper Division, is located 

near the confluence of the White and Deschutes Rivers and adjacent to Maupin in northcentral Oregon. Project lands are located on Juniper Flat, a plateau 3- to 6-miles-wide 

and approximately 17 miles long. The project lands produce pasture, hay, and wheat; 

storage provides supplemental water supply for about 2,000 acres. 

Federally-owned project features included in the proposed action are Wasco Dam and 

Clear Lake. Wasco Dam is the only storage facility in the Wapinitia Project, with a total 

active capacity of 11,900 acre-feet. The dam was constructed in 1959 at the outlet of 

Clear Lake, a natural lake. JFDIC uses storage in Clear Lake to supplement other 

privately developed water supplies. 

The following is a brief summary of project operations included in the proposed action. 

Refer to pages 91-94 in the Operations Report for a detailed description. The proposed 

action includes the storage behind and release of water from Wasco Dam for diversion at 

the Clear Creek Diversion. Storage water is diverted into the privately owned and 

operated Clear Creek Diversion facilities under water rights held by JFDIC. Diversion of 

this storage water is interrelated and interdependent to the proposed action. 

September 2003 – Final 2-33 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.2.4.1 Storage and Delivery of Water 

Wasco Dam and Clear Lake Operations 

Project water is stored in Clear Lake behind Wasco Dam, about 35 miles west of Maupin, 

Oregon. The drainage area comprises over 8 square miles and is fed from seasonal 

precipitation, principally in the form of winter snowfall. Wasco Dam storage is used to 

supplement the irrigation flows on the project when the natural flows begin to decrease in 

July during wet years and as early as April in dry years. The total amount of water 

diverted from natural streamflow and storage for the Wapinitia Project is about 5,000 

acre-feet annually. The diversion of the storage water is an interrelated and 

interdependent action; the diversion of the natural flow is by private facilities and not part 

of the proposed or interrelated and interdependent actions. 

Summer inflows are received from many springs in the immediate reservoir area. In 

order to refill the reservoir for the irrigation season, the emergency gate is closed every 

year from October through April, with the regulating gate remaining open to bypass 

possible flood flows. If the elevation of the lake were to reach 3511 feet during the 

closure period, flood flows would discharge via the overflow weirs and through the open 

regulating gate. 

Operation of Wasco Dam and Clear Lake are summarized in Table 2-10. 

Table 2-10. Summary of Wasco Dam and Clear Lake Operations 

Item Comment 

Releases 

Minimum release None required. Some seepage occurs. 

20-45 cfs Typical peak irrigation release from dam. 

50 cfs Typical maximum diversion into Clear Creek diversion works. 

52.9 cfs JFDIC water right at Clear Creek diversion works. 

Rate of change (maximum) No limits. 

Reservoir Content 

Minimum pool None. The original natural lake volume remains when all storage water is 

used. Storage is nearly emptied in most drought years. 

2,540 acre-feet Average end-of-October carryover.1 

11,900 acre-feet Full pool (active capacity). Refills completely less than 20 percent of the 

years. 

1

 Active capacity that is carried over on an average basis. 

2-34 September 2003 – Final 
0 2.5 5 10

Miles

Wapinitia Project, Oregon

Major Facilities

Clear Lake

Wasco Dam

Maupin

Dufur

Warm Springs

Pine Grove Wapinitia

Tygh Valley

Mount Hood

Deschut es River

White River

Clear Creek

Frog Cree k

Wapinitia Creek

26

26

Badger

Lake

Threemile Creek

Fif te enmile Creek

Rock Creek

Pine Hollow

Timothy

Lake

Gate Creek

Lost 

Boulder 

Ditch

Boulder

Cre ek

Badger Creek

Juniper Flat

JFDIC Canal

M cCubbins Gulch

Forest Creek

Lost

Creek

197

197

Source:

 USBR PN Region 8/14/2002

Facilities with U.S. ownership 

are highlighted in green

Dams

Streams

Lakes and Reservoirs

Figure 2-9

Frog

Lake

Warm Springs

Indian Reservation

Canals
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2-36 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.2.4.2 Diversion of Water 

JFDIC has a water right to divert a maximum of 52.9 cfs at the Clear Creek diversion 

works. In normal years, natural flows from Clear Creek and Frog Creek will typically 

meet irrigation demands until some time in May or June before releases are needed from 

Wasco Dam. In wet years, reservoir releases may not be needed until late June or early 

July; in very dry years releases may be needed in April. Clear Creek is essentially 

dewatered at the Clear Creek diversion works during the irrigation season (except for 

early season water in excess of irrigation demand), but some leakage occurs and springs 

begin to replenish the live flow within about a mile downstream (Reclamation 2003a). 

Water is conveyed from the Clear Creek diversion works through the JFDIC Main Ditch 

to McCubbin’s Gulch, a natural watercourse. Water is then carried down McCubbin’s 

Gulch to the extreme western edge of the district where it becomes part of the district’s 

delivery system at Pine Grove. Flows at Pine Grove typically need to be 20 to 25 cfs to 

meet irrigation demand, with 30 cfs being the maximum capacity. 

2.2.5 Facilities Maintenance 

Maintaining facilities in good operating condition is important. Failure of features, such 

as outlet works stuck in the open or closed position or major cavitation/erosion damage, 

can quickly lead to significant damage to the structure and possible uncontrolled water 

releases which can be devastating to life, property, and the environment. The purpose of 

maintenance programs is to maintain facilities in good operating condition and to identify 

potential problems and repair features before failure occurs. Nonetheless, unexpected 

failure does occur. These failures can happen at any time and often require emergency 

repair operations to avoid major damage to the structure. 

Federally-owned water conveyance and control facilities and facilities included in 

Reclamation’s Safety of Dams program, require periodic inspection, maintenance, and 

repair; all major features undergo a major review of operation and maintenance at 3-year 

intervals. Periodic inspection may require operation of features at specific reservoir 

water surface elevations to assure continued reliable operation. Times of inspections are 

generally accomplished near the end of the irrigation season. When underwater dive 

inspections are required, minimum flows during inspections are coordinated with ODFW. 

Specific times, duration of flow interruptions, and minimum flow needs are coordinated 

with the ODFW, OWRD, and USFS. Repairs consist of repairing eroded concrete, 

recoating or replacing corroded metalwork, repairing cavitation damage to control gates, 

removing rock and debris from intake and outlet structures, and repairing metal and 

concrete outlet conduits. Dewatering of various features is often required for inspections, 

repairs, and other maintenance activities. Reduced or increased riverflow, lowering or 

September 2003 – Final 2-37 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

raising the reservoir water surface, installation of bulkheads, and construction of 

cofferdams for temporary diversion of flows may be required. 

Transferred works are routinely inspected jointly by Reclamation and the operating entity 

under the Review of Operation and Maintenance Program. If required maintenance is 

identified in an inspection, the operating entity prepares the specifications and is required 

to submit those specifications to Reclamation for review and approval. 

Maintenance activities at one facility in a system may require system operation changes 

that affect reservoir levels and flows at other facilities. Emergency actions conducted by 

Reclamation which result in significant changes in flows or pool levels at reservoirs are 

coordinated with resource management agencies and other parties with major interests in 

the operation. When damage is identified or appears likely to occur, the risks are 

evaluated and a decision is made to make repairs immediately (emergency or 

unscheduled repairs) or, if practical, to delay repairs until the regular maintenance 

schedule. 

The Operations Description report describes routine maintenance activities specific to 

Reclamation’s Deschutes River basin project facilities (pages 49-51, 83, and 95). Work 

planned is subject to change depending on funding appropriations, additional study, or 

other unforeseen events. Non-routine maintenance activities potentially affecting ESAlisted species would entail a separate Section 7 consultation. 

2.3 LEGAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES 

Reclamation’s authority in operating and maintaining its projects is determined by 

numerous legal and statutory authorities and obligations. These include Congressional 

authorizations, state water law and associated water rights, and contractual obligations 

with contractors. The proposed action for this consultation is consistent with these 

authorities. This section elaborates on those authorities, responsibilities, and obligations 

to explain the rationale and limitations involved in operating Reclamation projects. The 

Operations Description report provides additional information and will be referenced as 

appropriate. 

2.3.1 Congressional Authorizations 

Reclamation must receive authorization from Congress before constructing a project. 

Authorizing legislation states the authorized purpose of the project or facilities that 

determines the uses of storage water and the limits within which a Federal facility can be 

operated. Irrigation is the primary purpose of all authorized projects in the Deschutes 

River basin. Other incidental uses are sometimes authorized for projects. For example, 

2-38 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

general authorizations for recreation and fish and wildlife apply to management of water 

and land surfaces and the development of facilities for recreation or safety purposes. 

They do not authorize reallocation of project water supply for these purposes. The 

following describes authorizing language for each of the Deschutes River basin projects. 

2.3.1.1 Deschutes Project 

The Deschutes Project was authorized by a finding of feasibility by the Secretary of the 

Interior on September 24, 1937; it was approved by the President on November 1, 1937 

pursuant to the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 836) and the Act of December 5, 1924 (43 

Stat. 702). Construction of Haystack Dam was authorized by the Congress in Public Law 

83-573 dated August 10, 1954. Irrigation is the authorized purpose of the Deschutes 

Project. 

2.3.1.2 Crooked River Project 

The Crooked River Project was authorized under the Act of August 6, 1956, specifically 

to provide irrigation water for lands in the Crooked River Project and other beneficial 

purposes, including flood control. The Act authorized the construction of minimum basic 

public recreation (health and safety) facilities and structures to promote the preservation 

and propagation of fish and wildlife. The authorized fish and wildlife purposes were 

specifically described as the construction of a fish screen and ladder at the Crooked River 

Diversion structure and a minimum release of 10 cfs from Bowman Dam to maintain the 

downstream fishery when releases are not being made for irrigation or flood control. 

Although no space in Prineville Reservoir is specifically allocated for health and safety 

facilities or for the minimum 10 cfs release, these purposes are considered during annual 

planning of reservoir operations. 

The authorizing act was amended in 1959 to extend the Crooked River Project by 

increasing the land area receiving water, and again in 1964 to permit construction of 

additional irrigation facilities. Both amendments were intended to utilize uncontracted 

space in Prineville Reservoir for irrigation. 

The Act does not authorize the use of the storage space for any purpose other than 

irrigation and flood control. Natural flow from the upper Crooked River is passed 

through Prineville Reservoir without being stored and is released from Bowman Dam to 

meet the minimum 10 cfs release requirement. 

September 2003 – Final 2-39 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.3.1.3 Wapinitia Project 

Congress authorized the Wapinitia Project, Juniper Division, in Public Law 84-559 dated 

June 4, 1956. The authorized purpose of the project was for the irrigation of about 2,100 

acres. Construction of minimum basic recreation facilities to allow public access and 

maintain health and safety were also authorized. 

2.3.2 State Water Law 

The western states obtained ownership of streams and control of the water within each 

state upon admission to the United States. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 

recognizes this principle by requiring that the acquisition and use of water for 

Reclamation projects shall proceed in conformity with state law. Reclamation storage 

and release of water for project purposes has complied and continues to comply with state 

water law. 

State laws regulate the acquisition and the use of water and limit use of water to 

beneficial purposes determined by the state. Reclamation secures state water rights for its 

projects that are consistent with the authorized project purposes. Water rights are secured 

in accordance with state water law, and water rights granted by the state are defined in 

terms of the type of water use, period of use, the source of the water, the location of the 

point of diversion and place of use, and the rate and total volume that may be diverted, if 

applicable (some rights do not involve a diversion). Any changes in water use from those 

described in the water right definition must generally be authorized by the state through 

an approval of a transfer of a water right. Watermasters oversee the diversion and use of 

water to assure compliance with water rights of record. 

Federal law provides that Reclamation obtain water rights for its projects and administer 

its projects pursuant to state law relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution 

of water, unless the state laws are inconsistent with expressed or clearly implied 

Congressional directives [43 U.S.C. ' 383; California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 678 

(1978); appeal on remand, 694 F.2d 117 (1982)]. Water can only be stored and delivered 

by a project for authorized purposes for which Reclamation has asserted or obtained a 

water right in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 and applicable 

Federal law. Reclamation must operate projects in a manner that does not impair senior 

or prior water rights. Reclamation has an obligation to deliver water to the project water 

users in accordance with the project water rights and contracts between Reclamation and 

the water users (which may be through an irrigation district). Water lawfully stored in 

project reservoirs can be used for project purposes to the extent the water is applied to 

beneficial use within the project. 

2-40 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

In Oregon, as in most western states, a water right is obtained through application 

followed by beneficial use proof (see ORS 537.010). Likewise, Oregon law is similar to 

the laws of most other western states in that actual application of the water to the land is 

required to perfect a water right for agricultural use. Federal law concerning Reclamation 

projects, which is consistent with Oregon law, also provides that the use of water 

acquired under the Reclamation Act of 1902 "shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, 

and beneficial use shall be the basis, measure, and the limit of the right" (43 U.S.C. ' 

372). Beneficial use is determined in accordance with state law to the extent it is not 

inconsistent with Congressional directives (see Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 697 F.2d at 

853-854; see also California v. United States, 438 U.S. at 678). Reclamation has no 

general authority to reallocate project water without passage of legislation by Congress. 

These authorities and the contracts with the United States create and define the extent of 

the water users’ rights. 

In the Deschutes River basin, water rights to store water behind Reclamation facilities 

and to divert project storage water are held by the water users, with the exception of the 

Crooked River Project. Reclamation has water rights for storage of water behind 

Bowman Dam and also for diversion of Crooked River Project water for irrigation. 

(Tables 5, 13, and 19 in the Operations Report identify water rights associated with 

project facilities.) 

Reclamation has limited authority to control diversion of storage water released from 

Reclamation facilities for circumstances where they do not hold the water right or own 

the diversion facilities, as is the case for Crane Prairie Reservoir and Clear Lake. The 

OWRD regulates the conveyance of water in the river and it protects flows from illegal 

diversion to the point where the water is diverted into canals. The proposed action 

includes storing water in and releasing water from Crane Prairie Reservoir and Clear 

Lake for diversion, but diversion of this water is an interrelated and interdependent 

action. 

Although Reclamation does not hold the water right to store or divert Wickiup Reservoir 

storage water, it does own the storage and diversion facilities. The proposed action 

includes storing water in and releasing water from Wickiup Reservoir and diverting 

stored water into the North Unit Main Canal. 

For the Crooked River Project, Reclamation possesses the water right for storing water 

behind Bowman Dam, releasing water into the Crooked River, and diverting Prineville 

Reservoir water. These actions are included in the proposed action for this consultation. 

September 2003 – Final 2-41 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.3.3 Contracts 

Under provisions of the Reclamation Act, specific authorizations for features of the 

Deschutes Project, and subsequent contractual obligations, project costs were to be repaid 

by the beneficiaries, i.e., those entities who received project water or whose original 

irrigation facilities may have been improved or enlarged by the United States. In 

accordance with Reclamation law, the United States entered into various forms of 

repayment contracts with entities for reservoir storage, rehabilitation, and/or enlargement 

of existing facilities (that were privately owned at the time), or for the construction of a 

new storage and delivery system (e.g., Wickiup Dam and the delivery system for the 

NUID) in exchange for repayment of the construction costs allocated to irrigation and the 

allotted operations and maintenance costs. 

The use of the water stored in Federal reservoirs is administered in conjunction with 

water rights and provisions of state water law. Reclamation operates reservoirs according 

to the contracts so that operations do not negatively affect storage without the permission 

or direction of the contractors. Repayment and other contracts having implications for 

the operation of Deschutes River basin project facilities are described in the Operations 

Report and referenced as appropriate in the section that follows. 

2.3.3.1 Deschutes Project 

Reclamation has current contracts with COID for operation of Crane Prairie Reservoir 

and with NUID for operation of Wickiup and Haystack Reservoirs. The Operations 

Description report at pages 30-32 provides details about these contracts. 

The January 4, 1939, repayment contract with COID requires Reclamation to provide 

50,000 acre-feet of storage in Crane Prairie Reservoir. The contract has specific 

language regarding the coordination of storage and releases between Wickiup and Crane 

Prairie Reservoirs. The contract contains language that allocates storage in the reservoirs 

according to the January 4, 1938, contract entered into between Arnold ID, COID, Lone 

Pine ID, and NUID. 

Under provisions of the repayment contract between Reclamation and NUID, 

Reclamation agreed to construct facilities to provide 200,000 acre-feet of storage space to 

NUID to irrigate 50,000 acres in exchange for repayment by NUID of a portion of 

construction, operation, and maintenance costs. The contract also notes that project water 

supply is subject to the terms of the January 4, 1938, inter-district contract (between 

NUID, COID, Lone Pine, and Arnold ID) referred to earlier and a January 4, 1939, 

contract between the United States and COID. Table 2-11 summarizes the allocation of 

storage space in the two Deschutes Project reservoirs as defined by the relevant contracts. 

Storage in both reservoirs is fully contracted. Haystack Reservoir serves as a reregulating 

2-42 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

reservoir for releases made out of Wickiup Reservoir; therefore, it is not included in 

Table 2-11. 

Table 2-11. Water Storage Allocation for Deschutes River Basin Federal Reservoirs 

Reservoir Spaceholder/Contractor Storage Allocations (acre-feet) 

DESCHUTES PROJECT 

Crane Prairie Reservoir COID 26,000 

Arnold ID 13,500 

Lone Pine 10,500 

TOTAL 50,000 

Wickiup Reservoir NUID 200,000 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT 

Prineville Reservoir OID 57,899 

Other 1

 10,374 

Uncontracted 80,360 

TOTAL 148,633 

WAPINITIA PROJECT 

Clear Lake JFDIC 11,900 

1 Includes 14 other contracts ranging from about 3,500 to 19 acre-feet each 

2.3.3.2 Crooked River Project 

Reclamation has repayment contracts with OID and 14 other water users for operation of 

Bowman Dam and storage water from Prineville Reservoir. The Operations Description 

report at pages 64-65 provides details about these contracts. Under the contract 

provisions, Reclamation agreed to construct facilities and provide almost 68,000 acre-feet 

of irrigation storage space in Prineville Reservoir to spaceholders in exchange for 

repayment of a portion of construction, operation, and maintenance costs. Almost 53 

percent of the storage space in Prineville Reservoir is currently uncontracted. 

Reclamation has had a moratorium in place since the 1970s for new repayment contracts. 

September 2003 – Final 2-43 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2.3.3.3 Wapinitia Project 

Reclamation and JFDIC entered into a repayment contract for provision of 11,900 acrefeet of storage from Clear Lake in exchange for repayment of a portion of construction, 

operation, and maintenance costs. JFDIC has repaid the construction costs associated 

with construction of project facilities. Storage in the project is fully contracted. The 

Operations Description report on page 91 provides details about these contracts. 

2.4 SUMMARY 

Reclamation proposes to operate the three Federal projects in the Deschutes River basin 

to store, release, divert, and deliver project water (from storage) consistent with 

applicable law and historic operation of the recent past. Project operations have evolved 

over time to the current operations, but have remained fairly stable since the beginning of 

the 1990s. Irrigation storage from project reservoirs is released from the dams, diverted 

downstream at diversion dams and pump stations, and delivered through canals to project 

beneficiaries. Table 2-12 provides a summary of proposed and interrelated and 

interdependent actions associated with the major facilities connected with current Federal 

projects in the Deschutes River basin. 

Reclamation is not responsible for effects on listed species of all water development and 

land management activities throughout the basin. For example, Reclamation is not 

responsible for the streamside rural development, road building, forest management, 

private water diversions, on-farm applications of pesticides and herbicides, or grazing 

influences that other state, Federal, and private agencies, organizations, and individuals 

have implemented in the Deschutes River basin. 

2-44 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 2-12. Summary of Proposed and Interrelated and Interdependent Actions 

Proposed Action Interrelated & Interdependent 

Actions 

Deschutes Basin 

Crane Prairie Dam & Reservoir U storage & release of water U diversion into private facilities 

Wickiup Dam & Reservoir U storage & release of water 

North Unit Headworks & Main Canal U diversion of Wickiup Reservoir 

storage water 

U diversion of natural flow water 

Haystack Dam & Reservoir U storage & release of water 

Arnold Diversion Dam & Canal, 

Central Oregon Headworks & Canal, 

North Canal (Pilot Butte) 

U diversion of Crane Prairie 

Reservoir storage water only 

Crooked River Pumping Plant U diversion of Crooked River 

water 

Crooked River Project 

Bowman Dam & Prineville Reservoir Ustorage & release of water 

Crooked River Diversion Dam and 

Feed Canal 

U diversion of Prineville Reservoir 

storage water 

U diversion of natural flow water 

Crooked River Distribution Canal U delivery of Prineville Reservoir 

storage water 

U conveyance of natural flow 

water 

Barnes Butte Pumping Plant & Ochoco 

Re-lift Plant 

U delivery of Prineville Reservoir 

storage water 

U conveyance of natural flow 

water 

9 small pumping plants U delivery of Prineville Reservoir 

storage water 

U conveyance of natural flow 

water 

Ochoco Dam & Reservoir U storage & release of Ochoco 

Creek water 

Ochoco Main Canal, Rye Grass, & 

other distribution canals 

U conveyance of Prineville 

Reservoir storage water 

Rice Baldwin, Central Ditch, People’s 

Ditch, Lowline Ditch 

U diversion of Prineville Reservoir 

storage water 

Wapinitia Project 

Wasco Dam and Clear Lake U storage & release of water 

Clear Creek Diversion, JFDIC Main 

Ditch 

U diversion of Clear Lake storage 

water 

September 2003 – Final 2-45 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

2-46 September 2003 – Final 
CHAPTER 3.0 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

The hydrologic regime in the Deschutes River basin has been altered by over 100 years of 

irrigation, hydropower, and other water development activities. Irrigation development first 

began in the basin in the 1860s when farmers diverted water from tributaries of the Deschutes 

River. Irrigation became widespread in the early 1900s when several small irrigation 

companies were formed. Reclamation built or rehabilitated the major irrigation reservoirs in 

the basin in the 1940s and 1950s. The following section describes the hydrologic changes 

that have occurred in the Deschutes River basin as a result of water development activities 

that may have impacted species which are now listed under ESA. These hydrologic effects 

described here are part of the environmental baseline for this consultation. 

3.2 HYDROLOGIC DATA 

Observed hydrologic data from the last 70 to 80 years of record were analyzed to determine 

current basin conditions resulting from historic management practices. Data were obtained 

from historical databases of the USGS, the OWRD, and Reclamation. Reservoir elevations 

are end-of-month elevations for each month of the year for the period of record. Historic river 

flow hydrographs are plotted from the average daily flows over the period. A flow 

exceedance analysis was done on the average monthly flows calculated from the average daily 

flows. 

Hydrologic data is reported by water year. A water year is the 12-month period from October 

1 through September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. 

For example, the 2003 water year consists of the period from October 1, 2002 through 

September 30, 2003. 

3-1 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reservoir elevations of Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs on the Deschutes River, 

Prineville Reservoir on the Crooked River, and Clear Lake on the White River are analyzed. 

Historic river flows for the following are summarized: 

• Deschutes River below Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs 

• Deschutes River below Bend, near Culver, Madras, and at Moody 

• Crooked River below Arthur Bowman Dam (Prineville Reservoir) 

• Crooked River near Culver and below Opal Springs 

• Clear Creek below Clear Lake 

• White River below Tygh Valley 

A diagram of the water distribution system for the Deschutes River basin is shown in Figure 

3-1. This figure is not comprehensive but intended only to illustrate the sequence of major 

storage, inflows, outflows (diversions), and major stream gages described in this report. 

3-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

below 

Tygh Valley . 

Warm Springs River 

squaw creeic + 

Canal 

~ _ _ ~f!! _!'!_e!!_ ~a.!?'!!_ _ 1 

I 

River 

Columbia River 

Trout Creek 

~$',"' v$"' (/\~e,"' 

/ 

, "7f / 

A 

I 

e "' ,,_o~,"' )I- Ochoco 

"'"' A , Feed Canal r 

I 

I 

,"' I ' 

,"' I 

r 1 ·~--~~ --~~-- _, l 

~ 

;;; - I c: 

I .. ;;; (.) 

I c: .s ::...1 .. :!g l (.) ~ ~ ~ 

I 0 § (I) I ~ 

I .c: 

t:: I 0 

I ~ 

I 

_J 

: .... ( 

~ I Q: 1 Crooked River 

""tl ___ I Feed Canal 

~ 0 

e 

0 

• Stream Gauging Station 

Soutoes: Ckegc>n Wale( Resources Oep.a~n1 

Buteau of Reclamation. PN Region 

Central Oregon Canal 

--------------- -- ------- ~ 

Arnold Canal 

--------------------- ~ 

• Benham Falls 

Little Deschutes River 

Little Deschutes River Crescent Creek 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 3-1. Deschutes River Basin Water Distribution System 

September 2003 – Final 3-3 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.3 DESCHUTES RIVER 

3.3.1 Crane Prairie Reservoir 

Crane Prairie Dam was privately constructed in 1922 as a rock-filled timber-crib structure and 

was later rehabilitated by Reclamation in 1940. Operation of Crane Prairie Dam and 

Reservoir changed with the construction of Wickiup Reservoir in 1949. Figure 3-2 displays 

the historic end-of-month elevations of Crane Prairie Reservoir for water years 1941 through 

2001. The reservoir achieved full pool (elevation 4445 feet) about once every 3 years. Prior 

to construction of Wickiup Dam in 1949, there was a greater fluctuation in annual elevation 

and lower minimum elevations at Crane Prairie Reservoir. The less variable elevations and 

the higher minimum elevations after 1949 are most likely due to the coordinated management 

of Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs for filling, which is described in pages 32-42 of the 

Operations Report. A Crane Prairie Reservoir unofficial minimum discharge of 30 cfs was 

also set in the mid-1950s. 

Crane Prairie Reservoir Historic Elevation 

4425 

4430 

4435 

4440 

4445 

4450 

10/1/4010/1/4310/1/4610/1/4910/1/5210/1/5510/1/5810/1/6110/1/6410/1/6710/1/7010/1/7310/1/7610/1/7910/1/8210/1/8510/1/8810/1/9110/1/9410/1/9710/1/00 

Elevation (feet) 

W ickiup Dam 

Co nst ruct ed 

Figure 3-2. Crane Prairie Historic End-of-Month Reservoir Elevations 

(Water Years 1941-2001) 

3-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.3.2 Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam 

Figure 3-3 shows the historic average daily flow downstream from Crane Prairie Reservoir for 

water years 1923 through 2001; Figure 3-4 shows these flows that were less than 50 cfs. The 

historical record for Crane Prairie was divided into three periods: 1) water years 1923 

through 1938 before Crane Prairie Dam was rehabilitated and Wickiup Dam was built, 2) 

water years 1939 through 1949 the period during which Crane Prairie Dam was rehabilitated 

and Wickiup Dam was built, and 3) the period 1950 through 2001 when both reservoirs were 

built and operating. The average monthly flow percent exceedance plots for water years 1923 

through 1938 are shown in Figure 3-5 and water years 1950 to 2001 are shown in Figure 3-6. 

These two periods were chosen to compare river flows before the reservoirs were built to 

flows after both Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams were built and operating. 

De schute s Riv er below Crane Prairie Rese rvoir 

Historic Daily Flow 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

10/1/2210/1/2610/1/3010/1/3410/1/3810/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Flow (cfs) 

Cr ane Pr ai r e

 Rehabilit at ed 1939 

Wi ckiup Dam 

Built 1949 

Figure 3-3. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Reservoir, 

Historic Average Daily Flow (Water Years 1923-2001). 

September 2003 – Final 3-5 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Reservoir Historic Daily 

Flow 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

10/1/2210/1/2610/1/3010/1/3410/1/3810/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-4. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, 

Historic Average Daily Flow less than 50 cfs (Water Years 1923-2001) 

Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Reservoir Historic 

Average Monthly Flow Percent Exceedance Water Years 

1923-1938 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-5. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Prior to Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water Years 1923-1938) 

3-6 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschute s Rive r blw Crane Prairie Reservoir Historic Average 

Monthly Flow Percent Exceedance Water Years 1950-2001 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-6. Deschutes River below Crane Prairie Dam, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance After Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water Years 1950-2001) 

Exceedance level values for flows or reservoir elevations are derived by sorting and ranking the 

data, usually by month. Flow values for October at the 10 percent exceedance level would occur 

when October flows are unusually high; 50 percent flows would occur in a median October; and 

90 percent flows would occur when October flows are unusually low. For example, from Figure 

3-5, the October 10 percent exceedance flow is 323 cfs, meaning 10 percent of the time average 

monthly October flows equal or exceed 323 cfs. Also, from Figure 3-5, the 90 percent 

exceedance flow for October is 52 cfs, meaning 90 percent of the time average monthly October 

flows equal or exceed 52 cfs. 

Crane Prairie Dam was not rehabilitated by Reclamation until 1940, but there was a timber-crib 

structure at Crane Prairie that regulated the flow in the 1923 through 1938 period. From the 

discharge data and percent exceedance plots (Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6), the flows were 

generally lower for the 90 percent exceedance during the winter months prior to construction of 

the reservoir (1923 through 1938) when compared to the after construction period. After 

Wickiup Dam was constructed in 1949, median flows downstream from Crane Prairie Dam were 

higher in April, May, and June due to irrigation releases and were lower in July and August due 

to irrigation flows being provided by Wickiup Reservoir downstream (water years 1950-2001). 

In the late 1930s and 1940s before Wickiup Dam was constructed, the winter minimum flows 

September 2003 – Final 3-7 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

were well below 30 cfs and many times below 10 cfs. From the mid-1950s on, the minimum 

flows were generally in the 25 to 30 cfs range or more. During extremely dry years in the late 

1970s and briefly in 1991, the flows dropped below 30 cfs, but since the mid-1950s there were 

fewer occurrences of very low flows. The infrequent occurrence of flows below 30 cfs since the 

mid-1950s, the presence of Wickiup Dam since 1949, and the management of the two reservoirs 

together explains the uniformity of Crane Prairie Reservoir elevation trends since the 1950s. 

3.3.3 Wickiup Reservoir 

Wickiup Dam was completed in 1949. Figure 3-7 displays the historic end-of-month elevations 

of Wickiup Reservoir for water years 1950 through 2001. During this 49-year period the 

reservoir filled approximately 70 percent of the time (elevation 4337.7 feet). In 1954 an official 

minimum winter discharge of 20 cfs was established. The elevation data show that the annual 

fluctuation of the reservoir elevation was greater prior to 1970. After 1970, the annual elevation 

ranges are more uniform and generally the reservoir is not drawn down as low as compared to 

pre-1970 data. There is no clear reason for this change in elevation trends. This may be due to 

more efficient use of the water or changes in land management and irrigation practices. 

Wickiup Reservoir Historic Elevation 

4270 

4280 

4290 

4300 

4310 

4320 

4330 

4340 

4350 

10/1/4910/1/5210/1/5510/1/5810/1/6110/1/6410/1/6710/1/7010/1/7310/1/7610/1/7910/1/8210/1/8510/1/8810/1/9110/1/9410/1/9710/1/00 

Elevation (feet) 

Figure 3-7. Wickiup Reservoir Historic End-of-Month Elevations 

(Water Years 1950-2001) 

3-8 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir Historic Daily Flow 

2500 

Flow (cfs) 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

W ickiup Dam B uilt 194 9 

10/1/3810/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Figure 3-8. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Historic Average Daily Flow 

(Water Years 1939-2001) 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.3.4 Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam 

The average daily flows from water years 1939 to 2001 for the Deschutes River below Wickiup 

Dam are shown in Figure 3-8 and the average daily flows below 50 cfs are shown in Figure 3-9. 

The percent exceedance plot for the Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir for water years 

1939 through 1949 is shown in Figure 3-10 and for water years 1950 through 2001 is shown in 

Figure 3-11. 

In the period before Wickiup Dam was completed (1938 through 1948), the median (50 percent 

exceedance) flows are higher during the winter months and lower in the summer months when 

compared to the median flows after construction (1950 through 2001). The lower winter flows 

after construction reflect storage of water for refill and the higher summer flows are due to 

irrigation releases. Figure 3-8 shows a downward trend in summer discharges from 1950 on 

indicating more efficient irrigation practices and delivery systems in the basin, in addition to 

greater precipitation in later years requiring less storage water. From Figure 3-9 there is no 

obvious change to the frequency or level of minimum flows in the period after Crane Prairie and 

Wickiup Dams were constructed. 

September 2003 – Final 3-9 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir Historic Daily Flow 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

10/1/3810/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-9. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Historic Average Daily Flows 

less than 50 cfs (Water Years 1939-2001) 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance Water Years 1939-1949 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-10. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Average Monthly Flow
 

Percent Exeedance Before Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water Years 1939-1949) 

3-10 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River blw Wickiup Historic Ave rage Monthly Flow 

Percent Exceedance 

Water Years 1950-2001 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-11. Deschutes River Below Wickiup Dam, Average Monthly Flow
 

Percent Exceedance After Construction of Wickiup Dam (Water Years 1950-2001) 

3.3.5 Deschutes River below Bend 

The historic average daily flow for the Deschutes River below Bend for water years 1916 

through 1990 is shown in Figure 3-12. The Deschutes River below Bend gage is located 

downstream of North Canal Dam near the town of Bend at RM 164.4. Two periods of record for 

the Deschutes River below Bend were examined: 1) water years 1916 through 1939 before 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams were built, and 2) water years 1950 through 1990 after both 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams were in place. The period of record from 1940 through 1949 

are not included because Crane Prairie Dam was reconstructed and Wickiup Dam was 

constructed during these years. 

The average monthly flow percent exceedance plot for water years 1916 through 1939 (before 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams) is shown in Figure 3-13 and the exceedance plot for water 

years 1950 through 1990 is shown in Figure 3-14. The period before Crane Prairie and Wickiup 

Dams had higher flows during much of the water year. Flows were higher before the two 

projects due to less diversion and storage of water for irrigation. 

September 2003 – Final 3-11 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River below Bend Historic Daily Flow 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

10/1/1510/1/1910/1/2310/1/2710/4/3110/4/3510/4/3910/4/4310/4/4710/4/5110/4/5510/4/5910/4/6310/4/6710/4/7110/4/7510/4/7910/4/8310/3/88 

Flow (cfs) 

Crane Pr air ie Dam 

Rehab ilit at ed 19 3 9 

W ickiup Dam 

Co nst ruct ed 19 4 9 

Figure 3-12. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Daily Flow 

(Water Years 1916-1990) 

Deschutes Rive r be low Be nd Historic Av erage Monthly Flows 

Pe rcent Exce edance Water Years 1916-1939 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-13. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Average 

Monthly Flow Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1916-1939) 

3-12 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River below Bend Historic Average Monthly Flows 

Percent Exceedance Water Years 1950-1990 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-14. Deschutes River below Bend, Historic Average 

Monthly Flow Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1950-1990) 

3.3.6 Deschutes River Near Culver 

The historic average daily flow data for the Deschutes River near Culver for water years 1953 

through 2001 are shown in Figure 3-15. The Deschutes River near Culver gage is located 

directly upstream from Lake Billy Chinook and downstream of Squaw Creek at RM 120.1. The 

flows range from a minimum of about 500 cfs to a maximum of nearly 5,000 cfs. The flows are 

lower during the late 1980s and early 1990s due to very dry conditions and low water supply. 

The area upstream from this gage has significant groundwater discharge. Groundwater discharge 

was estimated from OWRD seepage runs. A seepage run consists of a series of discharge 

measurements made at sequentially downstream locations along a stream reach over a short 

period of time. The Deschutes River gained approximately 400 cfs along the 10-mile reach 

above the gaging station near Culver during seepage runs in May 1992 and May 1994 (Gannett 

et al. 2001). The consistency of the flows in both wet and dry years confirms the influence of 

considerable groundwater gains in this reach of the river. The exceedance plot for the Deschutes 

River near Culver is shown in Figure 3-16. Flows are higher during the winter when compared 

to the irrigation season due to significant groundwater discharge during the winter months 

September 2003 – Final 3-13 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschute s Rive r ne ar Culver Historic Daily Flow 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7/14/527/14/567/14/607/14/647/14/687/14/727/14/767/14/807/14/847/14/887/14/927/14/967/14/00 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-15. Deschutes River near Culver, Historic Average Daily Flow 

(Water Years 1953–2001) 

De schutes Riv er ne ar Culver Historic Av erage Monthly Flows 

Percent Exceedance Water Years 1953-2001 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

90% 50% 10% 

Figure 3-16. Deschutes River near Culver, Average Monthly 

Flow Percent Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1953-2001) 

3-14 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.3.7 Deschutes River Near Madras 

The Deschutes River near Madras gage is located directly downstream from Lakes Billy 

Chinook and Simtustus at RM 100.1. Flows at this location include contributions from the 

Metolius and Crooked Rivers. The average daily historic flows for water years 1925 through 

2001 for the Deschutes River near Madras are shown in Figure 3-17. The daily flows ranged 

from 2,440 cfs to 17,800 cfs and minimum flows ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 cfs. 

Two periods of record were examined for the Deschutes River near Madras: 1) water years 1925 

through 1939, before any Reclamation reservoirs were in place, and 2) 1962 through 2001, when 

all Reclamation reservoirs were in place and operating (Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Prineville 

Reservoirs). Additionally, the period after 1962 reflects operation effects from the private 

Pelton-Round Butte hydroelectric complex. Daily flows are less erratic post-1962. 

Deschute s River near Madras Historic Daily Flow 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

8000 

10000 

12000 

14000 

16000 

18000 

20000 

10/1/2410/1/2810/1/3210/1/3610/1/4010/1/4410/1/4810/1/5210/1/5610/1/6010/1/6410/1/6810/1/7210/1/7610/1/8010/1/8410/1/8810/1/9210/1/9610/1/00 

Flow (cfs) 

Cr ane Pr air ie Dam 

Rehab ilit at ed 19 39 

W ickiup Dam 

Co nst ruct ed 1949 

B o wman Dam 

Comp let ed 196 1 

Figure 3-17. Deschutes River near Madras, Historic Average Daily Flow 

(Water Years 1925-2001). 

September 2003 – Final 3-15 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The percent exceedance plot of the average monthly flows for the Deschutes River near Madras 

for the 1925 through 1939 period is shown in Figure 3-18 and for the 1962 through 2001 period 

in Figure 3-19. The exceedance plots have the same general shape with the highest flows in 

February and March and the lowest flows during July through November. Flows post-1962 are 

generally higher than prior to water development in the basin. The 50 percent exceedance is the 

most similar pre and post-water development with the 1962 through 2001 period having slightly 

higher flows during the winter which could be due to a greater amount of groundwater discharge 

from irrigation. The 10 percent exceedance on the 1925 through 1939 plot is much lower than 

the 10 percent exceedance on the 1962 through 2001 plot indicating a drier period during 1925 

through 1939. With the exception of the January through March period, flows at the 90 and 50 

percent exceedance are within 10 percent of each other. 

Table 3-1 shows the average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1990 through 2001 for the 

Deschutes River near Madras gage. 

Table 3-1. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) Exceedance 

for the Deschutes River near Madras 

Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent 

Exceedance 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Deschutes River 

Near: 

Madras 

(water years 

1990-2001) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

3708 

3977 

5410 

4053 

4305 

5714 

4023 

4525 

7253 

4055 

4591 

9600 

3952 

4836 

8974 

3906 

4775 

7732 

3739 

4149 

7643 

3637 

4081 

5807 

3643 

3923 

5899 

3424 

3777 

4863 

3586 

3832 

4695 

3566 

3773 

4911 

* Information from: http://www.wrd.state.or.us 

The Deschutes River flows near Madras reflect the influence of groundwater discharge. Gannett 

et al. (2001) estimated that the total groundwater discharge in the confluence area around Lake 

Billy Chinook was 2,300 cfs . They concluded that these groundwater discharges, along with the 

flow of the Metolius River (which is primarily groundwater discharge during the dry season), 

makes up almost all of the flows of the Deschutes River near Madras during the summer and 

early fall (Gannett et al. 2001). 

Irrigation canal seepage is a significant source of groundwater recharge. It is estimated that 46 

percent of the water diverted upstream from Lake Billy Chinook for irrigation is lost through 

canal leakage (Gannett et al. 2001). The average annual rate of leakage from irrigation canals to 

groundwater during 1994 (a year studied in detail by Gannett et al. 2001) was 356,600 acre-feet 

(490 cfs). Canal leakage peaked in the late 1950s when mean annual diversions were 

approximately 940,000 acre-feet (1,300 cfs) and nearly 435,000 acre-feet (600 cfs) was lost to 

groundwater recharge. 

3-16 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River near Madras Ave rage Historic Monthly Flow 

Percent Excee dance 

Water Years 1925-1939 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-18. Deschutes River near Madras, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1925-1939) 

Deschutes River near Madras Average Historic Monthly Flow 

Pe rce nt Excee dance Wate r Ye ars 1962-2001 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-19. Deschutes River near Madras, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1962-2001) 

September 2003 – Final 3-17 
 

 

Crane Prairie Cam 

Rehabilitated 1939 

Wickiup Dam 

Constructed 1949 

Bowman Dam 

Constructed 1961 

Deschute s Riv er at Moody Historic Daily Flow 

Wasco Dam Cosntructed 1959 

70000 

60000 

Flow (cfs) 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

10/1/0610/1/1010/1/1410/1/1810/1/2210/1/2610/1/3010/1/3410/1/3810/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Figure 3-20. Deschutes River at Moody, Historic Average 

Daily Flow (Water Years 1907-2001) 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.3.8 Deschutes River at Moody 

The Deschutes River at Moody gage is located at RM 1.4 near the mouth of the Deschutes River 

where it enters the Columbia River. The historic average daily flow of the Deschutes River at 

Moody is shown in Figure 3-20. The minimum flows at Moody ranged from 2,880 to 5,000 cfs 

during the 1907 through 2001 water year period. 

Two periods of record were examined for the Deschutes River at Moody: 1) water years 1907 

through 1939, before any Reclamation projects were present in the basin, and 2) 1962 through 

2001, the period when all the irrigation projects and Pelton-Round Butte hydropower complex 

were operating. The historic average monthly flow percent exceedance plot for water years 1907 

through 1938 period is shown in Figure 3-21 and for water years 1962 through 2001 in Figure 

3-22. Table 3-2 shows the average monthly flow exceedance for water years 1990 through 2001 

for the Deschutes River at Moody. 

3-18 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Deschutes River at Moody Historic Average Monthly Flows 

Percent Exceedance 

Water Years 1907-1939 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

8000 

10000 

12000 

14000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-21. Deschutes River at Moody, Average Monthly Flow
 

Percent Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1907-1939) 

Deschute s Rive r at Moody Historic Ave rage Monthly Flows 

Pe rcent Exce edance 

Water Years 1962- 2001 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

8000 

10000 

12000 

14000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-22. Deschutes River at Moody, Average Monthly Flow
 

Percent Exceedance Plot (Water Years 1962-2001) 

September 2003 – Final 3-19 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 3-2. Average Monthly Flow (cfs) 

Exceedance for the Deschutes River at Moody
 Gage Location 

(period of record) 

Percent 

Exceedance 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Deschutes River 

At: 

Moody 

(water years 

1990-2001) 

90% 

50% 

10% 

4167 

4410 

5860 

4652 

5043 

6716 

4446 

5389 

11,312 

4873 

5425 

14,981 

4595 

5503 

16,981 

4418 

6717 

9512 

4560 

5494 

9880 

4166 

5604 

7717 

3988 

4731 

7297 

3606 

4309 

5715 

3748 

4302 

5351 

3809 

4110 

5285 

* Information from: http://www.wrd.state.or.us 

The exceedance plots reflecting flows before and after construction of Reclamation projects and 

the Pelton-Round Butte hydropower complex are similar, with only subtle differences. 

Examination of average daily flows reveal that flows after construction of Pelton-Round Butte 

are more uniform. 

3.4 CROOKED RIVER 

3.4.1 Prineville Reservoir 

Bowman Dam was completed in 1961. The historic end-of-month elevations for Prineville 

Reservoir are shown in Figure 3-23. The historic elevations reflect the normal operating 

practices as described in pages 66 through 73 in the Operations Report. The reservoir fills 

approximately 3 out of 4 years and the minimum elevations reflect the fluctuating water supply 

conditions over the 40-year period. The lowest minimum elevations occurred during the extreme 

drought years of 1977 and 1990 through 1992. Construction modifications on Ochoco Dam 

started in 1994 and completed in 1997 resulted in additional storage from Prineville Reservoir 

being used for that period. Other than this, there does not appear to be any significant changes in 

reservoir elevation trends over the period of record. 

3-20 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Prineville Reservoir Historic Elevation 

3140 

3160 

3180 

3200 

3220 

3240 

3260 

10/1/6110/1/6310/1/6510/1/6710/1/6910/1/7110/1/7310/1/7510/1/7710/1/7910/1/8110/1/8310/1/8510/1/8710/1/8910/1/9110/1/9310/1/9510/1/9710/1/9910/1/01 

Elevation (feet) 

Figure 3-23. Prineville Reservoir Historic End-of-Month Elevations 

(Water Years 1962-2001) 

3.4.2 Crooked River below Bowman Dam 

The Crooked River below Bowman Dam historic average daily flows are shown in Figure 3-24. 

In the years before Bowman Dam was constructed there was a greater variability in the flows, 

with higher peak flows and lower minimum flows. The average monthly flow percent 

exceedance plots before construction of Bowman Dam are shown in Figure 3-25 and after 

construction (1961 through 2001) in Figure 3-26. In the period before Bowman Dam (1943 

through 1960), the peak flows at all exceedance levels were higher and winter flows were lower 

than before construction of the dam. The timing of peak flows also changed after the 

construction of Bowman Dam. The seasonal peak flows pre-dam occurred in April at the 10, 50, 

and 90 percent exceedance. Post-dam peak flows occurred in March at the 10 percent 

exceedance, April at the 50 percent exceedance, and June or July at the 90 percent exceedance 

level. 

September 2003 – Final 3-21 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crooked River below Arthur Bowman Dam 

Historic Daily Flow 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

10/1/4210/1/4610/1/5010/1/5410/1/5810/1/6210/1/6610/1/7010/1/7410/1/7810/1/8210/1/8610/1/9010/1/9410/1/98 

Flow (cfs) 

B o wm an Dam 

Co nstructed 1961 

Figure 3-24. Crooked River below Bowman Dam,
 

Historic Average Daily Flow (Water Years 1943-2001) 

Crooked River Below Arthur Bowman Dam Average Monthly 

Flows Percent Exce edance Water Ye ars 1943 - 1960 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-25. Crooked River below Bowman Dam, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Before Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1943-1960) 

3-22 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crooked Riv er Below Arthur Bowman Dam Ave rage Monthly 

Flows Perce nt Exceedance Water Ye ars 1961 - 2001 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-26. Crooked River below Bowman Dam, Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance After Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1961-2001) 

3.4.3 Crooked River Near Culver and Below Opal Springs 

The Crooked River near Culver at RM 1.0 has a period of record from 1918 through 1961 

(before construction of Bowman Dam), and the Crooked River below Opal Springs at RM 6.7 

has a period of record from 1962 through 2001 (post-Bowman Dam). Although these gages are 

almost 6 miles apart, the records can be compared because nearly all of the diversions and 

seepage gains occur above RM 6.7. The historic average daily flows for these gages are shown 

in Figure 3-27 and Figure 3-28. Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-30 display the average monthly flow 

percent exceedance plots for these gages. 

Figure 3-27 and Figure 3-28 show that the Crooked River flows were more variable before 

Bowman Dam was built. Maximum flows were as high as 8,000 cfs and minimums were near 

1,000 cfs. After completion of the dam, flows on the Crooked River were more uniform with 

fewer extremes on the high and low ends of the hydrograph. The median average monthly flows 

ranged from 1,200 to 2,300 cfs in the years before Bowman Dam compared to median flows 

ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 cfs in the years after construction. 

September 2003 – Final 3-23 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crooked River near Culver Historic Daily Flow 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

10/1/1710/1/2110/1/2510/1/2910/1/3310/1/3710/1/4110/1/4510/1/4910/1/5310/1/5710/1/61 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-27. Crooked River near Culver, Historic Average Daily Flow
 

Before Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1918-1961) 

Crooked River below Opal Springs Historic Daily Flow 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

10/1/6110/1/6510/1/6910/1/7310/1/7710/1/8110/1/8510/1/8910/1/9310/1/97 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-28. Crooked River below Opal Springs, Historic Average Daily Flow 

After Construction of Bowman Dam (Water Years 1962-1999) 

3-24 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Crooked Riv er nr Culv er Historic Average Monthly Flow 

Percent Excee dance Water Years 1918-1961 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-29. Crooked River near Culver, Historic Average Monthly 

Flow Percent Exceedance (Water Years 1918-1961) 

Crooked Rive r be low Opal Springs Historic Average Monthly 

Flow Perce nt Exceedance Water Ye ars 1962-2001 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-30. Crooked River below Opal Springs, Historic Average Monthly 

Flow Percent Exceedance After Bowman Dam (Water Years 1962-2001) 

September 2003 – Final 3-25 
C le ar Lake H ist o r ic E le v at ion 

3520 

3515 

Elevation (feet) 3510 

3505 

3500 

3495 

3490 

3485 

3480 

10/1/8410/2/8510/3/8610/4/8710/4/8810/5/8910/6/9010/7/9110/7/9210/8/9310/9/94

10/10/9510/10/9610/11/9710/12/9810/13/9910/13/0010/14/01 

Figure 3-31. Clear Lake Historic End-of-Month Elevations (Water Years 1984-2001) 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3.5 WHITE RIVER

3.5.1 Clear Lake 

Wasco Dam (Clear Lake) was completed in 1959. The 1984 through 2001 historic end-of-month 

elevations for Clear Lake are shown in Figure 3-31. There are gaps in the historic elevation plot 

because measurements were not taken in some years and in other years some months had 

missing data. The available elevation data reflect the fluctuating water supply conditions during 

this 17-year period. Changes in elevation trends are due to changing water supply conditions, 

not due to changes in reservoir operations. 

3.5.2 Clear Creek below Clear Lake 

Figure 3-32 shows Clear Creek below Clear Lake historic daily flow for a period from 1968 

through 1973. This figure shows the increase in outflows from Clear Lake during the irrigation 

season with very little outflow during the rest of the year. Exceedance plots for this site were not 

done because of the short period of record. 

3-26 September 2003 Final – 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Clear Cre ek below Clear Lake Historic Daily Flow 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

6/1/68

8/27/68

11/22/68

2/17/695/15/698/10/6911/5/691/31/704/28/707/24/70

10/19/70

1/14/714/11/71

7/7/71

10/2/71

12/28/71

3/24/726/19/729/14/72

12/10/72

3/7/736/2/73

8/28/73 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 3-32. Clear Creek below Clear Lake, Historic Daily Flow (1968-1973) 

3.5.3 White River below Tygh Valley 

The Tygh Valley gage is located on the White River downstream of White River Falls, 

approximately 2 miles upstream from the confluence with the Deschutes River. The White River 

below Tygh Valley gage historic daily flow for water years 1918 through 1990 is plotted in 

Figure 3-33. (The data only goes through water year 1990 because the gage was discontinued 

after that year.) Figure 3-34 and Figure 3-35 show the average monthly flow percent exceedance 

plots for water years 1918 through 1959 before Wasco Dam, and for water years 1960 through 

1990 after Wasco Dam was constructed, respectively. When comparing the two exceedance 

plots, they are very similar with no significant changes in flows in the periods before and after 

Wasco Dam. Both plots show a winter peak from rain-on-snow events and a spring snowmelt 

peak. Clear Lake was a natural lake before Wasco Dam was constructed and the effect of adding 

extra storage with the dam was to lower the spring snowmelt peak in May. 

September 2003 – Final 3-27 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

White River below T ygh Valle y Historic Daily Flow 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

8000 

10000 

12000 

10/1/1710/1/2110/1/2510/1/2910/1/3310/1/3710/1/4110/1/4510/1/4910/1/5310/1/5710/1/6110/1/6510/1/6910/1/7310/1/7710/1/8110/1/8510/1/89 

Flow (cfs) 

W asco Dam 

Co nst r uct ed 19 59 

Figure 3-33. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Daily Flow Percent 

Exceedance (Water Years 1918-1990) 

White River below T ygh Valley Historic Average Monthly Flows 

Percent Exceedance Water Ye ars 1918-1959 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-34. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance Before Construction of Wasco Dam (Water Years 1918-1959) 

3-28 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

White River below T ygh Valley Historic Average Monthly Flows 

Pe rcent Exce edance Water Years 1960-1990 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Flow (cfs) 

10% 50% 90% 

Figure 3-35. White River below Tygh Valley, Historic Average Monthly Flow Percent 

Exceedance After Construction of Wasco Dam (Water Years 1960-1990) 

3.6 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

This hydrologic description examined the past and near present hydrologic conditions of 

reservoirs and river reaches in the Deschutes River basin. Water resources development in the 

Deschutes River basin, including Federal and private irrigation, groundwater development, and 

hydropower, has changed hydrologic conditions. 

Comparisons of river flows before and after construction of Reclamation projects demonstrate 

that reservoir outflows change the shape of the natural hydrograph downstream due to storing 

and releasing water for irrigation and flood control. Winter flows are usually lower post-project 

when water is being stored. However, winter flows generally increased in the middle and lower 

reaches of the Deschutes River after construction of the Reclamation projects due to an increase 

in groundwater recharge from irrigation development and the resulting groundwater discharge 

into these areas. Irrigation releases in the summer generally have resulted in higher summer 

flows than occurred before these projects were constructed. 

Hydrologic conditions have not changed substantially during the last 40 years since construction 

of irrigation and hydropower facilities in the basin. Reservoir elevation trends and river reach 

flows have remained relatively consistent over this period. 

September 2003 – Final 3-29 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

3-30 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

CHAPTER 4.0 LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides a brief description and ESA status of each listed species potentially 

affected by the proposed action. 

On June 4, 2002, Reclamation sent letters to NMFS and USFWS requesting that they provide an 

updated listing of ESA listed threatened and endangered species that could potentially be present 

in the project area or affected by Reclamation O&M activities in the Deschutes River basin. By 

return letters dated July 3, 2002 and June 28, 2002, respectively, the two agencies provided lists 

of the ESA-listed species (Appendix A). Reclamation previously requested ESA-listed species 

in February 2000 and February 2001. 

Table 4-1 tabulates all federally-listed ESA species that were initially identified and considered 

for this consultation. NMFS provided a comprehensive list of 14 anadromous fish ESUs that 

occur in Oregon. In conjunction with the NMFS, Reclamation determined that only one of the 

ESUs occurred in the action area (MCR steelhead). Accordingly, analysis was not conducted for 

13 of the ESUs as indicated in Table 4-1. 

ESA species considered in this consultation include bald eagle, bull trout, MCR steelhead, 

Canada lynx, and northern spotted owl. The ESA status, distribution, life history, and habitat 

requirements for these species are presented in this chapter. The environmental baseline for the 

listed species is stated in Chapter 5, and the effects of the proposed action are described in 

Chapter 6. 

Table 4-1. ESA Federally-Listed Species Initially Considered for 

Consultation on the Deschutes River Basin Projects O&M 

Common Name/ESU Scientific Name Occurs in Action Area 

Snake River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka No 

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha No 

Upper Columbia River steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No 

Middle Columbia River steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Yes 

September 2003 – Final 4-1 
 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Common Name/ESU Scientific Name Occurs in Action Area 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha No 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha No 

S. Oregon/N. California coasts coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch No 

Oregon coast coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch No 

Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha No 

Upper Willamette River steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No 

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha No 

Snake River steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No 

Lower Columbia River steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No 

Columbia River chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta No 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes 

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Yes 

Northern spotted owl1 Strix occidentalis caurina (occurs in Deschutes 

and Wapinitia projects 

only) 

Canada lynx1 Lynx canadensis (occurs in Deschutes 

and Wapinitia projects 

only) 

1 During preliminary analysis, it was determined that routine project operation and maintenance will not 

affect the Northern spotted owl, Canada lynx, nor their forest habitats. 

4.2 BALD EAGLE 

4.2.1 Status 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is currently listed as threatened in all lower 48 

contiguous states. Historically, the bald eagle could be found nesting throughout most of the 

continent. However, reproduction in North America declined dramatically between 1947 and 

1970 largely due to intake of organo-chloride pesticides (USFWS 1986). Habitat degradation, 

illegal harassment and disturbance, poisoning, and a reduced food base helped contribute to the 

decline. By 1978 the bald eagle was federally listed as a threatened species in 5 of the lower 48 

states and as an endangered species in the remaining lower 43 states. 

The USFWS initiated a recovery program for the species in the mid-1970s and divided the 48 

states into five bald eagle recovery regions. The Deschutes River basin lies within the Pacific 

Recovery Region that includes the states of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, 

4-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

California, and Nevada. The bald eagle recovery plan for the Pacific Region was approved in 

1986. 

Bald eagle populations have increased steadily since ESA listing. The improvement is a direct 

result of: 

• bans on DDT and other persistent organochloride pesticides 

• habitat protection 

• a growing public awareness of the bald eagles’ plight 

Due to the overall population increase, the bald eagle was reclassified in 1995 from endangered 

to threatened in all 48 lower states (Federal Register 60:36000). The number of bald eagles in 

the Pacific Recovery Region is five times what it was when the recovery plan was written 

(Federal Register 64:36454). 

4.2.2 Distribution 

In 1990, bald eagles nested in all but 5 of the 50 states. However, most bald eagle nesting is 

limited to the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Canada, the Great Lake states, Chesapeake Bay, 

Arizona, and Florida. Oregon and Washington have been strongholds for bald eagles, with more 

than two-thirds of the nesting population and one-half of the wintering population of the Pacific 

recovery area occurring in these two states (USFWS 1994). Occupied breeding territories 

surveyed in Oregon have increased from 20 in 1971 to 401 in 2002 (Isaacs and Anthony 2002). 

Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of bald eagle nesting sites in the Deschutes River basin. 

Delisting requirements under the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan include: 1) a minimum of 

800 nesting pairs; 2) an average reproductive rate of 1.0 fledged young per pair, with an average 

success rate per occupied site of not less than 65 percent; 3) breeding population goals met in at 

least 80 percent of the management zones; and 4) stable or increasing wintering populations. 

The numeric delisting goals have been met since 1995 (Federal Register 64:36454). 

Productivity has averaged about 1.0 young per occupied breeding area since 1990. The average 

success rate for occupied breeding areas exceeded 65 percent for the 5-year period ending in 

1999. For 1998, six of the seven Pacific region states reported an average success rate of 75 

percent. However, the plan goal for distribution among management zones is not yet fully 

achieved for all areas. The number of occupied breeding areas exceeded 800 in 1990 and has 

continued to increase. In 1998, 1,480 occupied breeding areas were estimated. As of 1999 

(Federal Register 64:36454), 28 of 37 (76 percent) management zone targets had been met. Of 

the 28 zones where target levels have been met, at least 11 have more than doubled the 

established goal. Wintering populations have been tracked in the Pacific and many other states 

using the mid-winter bald eagle surveys. However, wintering populations are difficult to assess 

because concentrations are dependent on weather and food supply and thus can be quite variable 

from year to year. 

September 2003 – Final 4-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4.2.3 Life History 

The bald eagle, like most birds of prey, exhibits sexual dimorphism, with the females weighing 

more than the males. Males and females are thought to mate for life, returning to the same 

nesting territory year after year. A clutch of one to three eggs is laid and incubated mostly by the 

female for about 35 days. The young fledge in 72-75 days. Often the younger, weaker bird is 

killed by its sibling in the competition for food. Bald eagles require 4-5 years to reach sexual 

maturity and attain full adult plumage. Prior to that time, immature bald eagles are often 

confused with immature golden eagles. 

4.2.4 Habitat Requirements 

4.2.4.1 Nesting Habitat 

In the Pacific Northwest, bald eagles typically nest in multi-layered coniferous stands with old 

growth trees within 1 mile of large bodies of water (lakes, reservoirs, large rivers, and coastal 

estuaries). Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical. Nest trees in the 

Pacific Northwest are found primarily in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, Douglas fir, and Sitka 

spruce/western hemlock forests (USFWS 1986). Species of trees used for nesting, however, vary 

among areas. In Oregon, nests are typically found in large conifers or cottonwoods (USFWS 

1986). Nests are generally not constructed in areas with nearby human activity. The nesting 

season for bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest generally extends from January 1 to mid-August 

(USFWS 1994). Young are usually produced in March and fledged in July; however, they may 

stay near the nest for several weeks after fledging. 

4.2.4.2 Wintering Habitat 

More than 25 percent of the wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states are present in the Pacific 

Northwest (USFWS 1986). Bald eagles winter in the Northwest from approximately November 

through March and are primarily associated with open water near concentrated food sources. An 

important habitat feature is perch trees which provide an unobstructed view of the surrounding 

area near foraging sites (USFWS 1986). Ponderosa pine and cottonwood snags are preferred 

perches in some areas, probably due to their open structure and height. Bald eagles may also use 

communal night roost sites in winter for protection from inclement weather. Characteristics of 

communal winter roost sites differ considerably from those of diurnal perch sites (USFWS 

1986), although both are invariably located near concentrated food sources, such as anadromous 

fish runs or high concentrations of waterfowl. Roost sites tend to provide more protection from 

weather than diurnal perch sites. Communal roosts in the Pacific Northwest tend to be located in 

uneven-aged forest stands with some degree of old-growth forest structure. Conifers might 

provide a more thermally favorable microenvironment than dead or deciduous trees, which might 

explain their high use by wintering eagles. In eastern Washington, bald eagles have been 

observed roosting in mixed stands of Douglas fir and ponderosa pine and in stands of black 

locust and black cottonwood. 

4-4 September 2003 – Final 
207

!(19

!(74

!(74

0 20 40

Miles

Deschutes River Basin 

Bald Eagle 

122°W 121°W 120°W 

45°N 

!(14 

!(31 

!(22 

!(218 

!(206 

!(35 

!(

!(242 

!(216 

!(126 

!(142 

!(126 

!(216 

!(19 

§ ̈¦84

tu20

tu26

tu395

tu97

tu197

tu30

tu97

tu tu26

20

Bend 

Maupin 

Redmond 

Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

W h i t e R i v e r 

M e t o l i u s R i ver 

C r o o k e d R i v e r 

D e s c h u tes 

River 

C o l u m b i a R i v e r 

S qua w 

Creek 

T r o u t Cree k 

Warm Spr i n g s R i v e r 

S h i t i k e r e e k 

B a k e o v en C

Lake 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Lake 

-& Bald Eagle Nests (OSU) 

C 

reek 

B u c k H o ll o w Creek 

Wickiup 

Odell Reservoir 

Waldo 

Lake 

Cultus 

Crane Prairie 

Crescent 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Sources:

 Oregon State University, 2002

 Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 2002

 US Forest Service, 2002

 US Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

 ́

For more detail in this area, 

refer to the map entitled "Crane 

Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs" 

L i t t l e 

R i v e r 

Deschu t e s 

Legend

Deschutes River Basin 

NOTE 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 45°N 

44°N 

44°N 

122°W 121°W 120°W Figure 4-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4-6 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4.2.4.3 Foraging Habitat 

Bald eagles are opportunistic foragers throughout their range. In the Pacific Northwest, bald 

eagles consume a range of food including a variety of fish, waterfowl, jackrabbits, and 

mammalian carrion (USFWS 1994). Game and nongame fish species tend to be the preferred 

food, but diet is dependent on prey availability. Winter killed mammals can be important on big 

game winter ranges, while waterfowl are important where concentrations are significant. Fish 

are also taken as carrion, especially spawned out kokanee (USFWS 1986). 

4.3 BULL TROUT 

4.3.1 Status 

The USFWS issued a final rule listing the Columbia River and Klamath River populations of 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as a threatened species under the ESA on June 10, 1998 

(USFWS 1998). The Columbia River Distinct Population Segment is threatened by habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, and past 

fisheries management practices such as the introduction of non-native species. 

In the final listing rule, the USFWS (1998) identified three subpopulations of bull trout in the 

Deschutes River basin: 1) Odell Lake in the upper Deschutes River basin, 2) Metolious RiverLake Billy Chinook complex, and 3) lower Deschutes River. Historically bull trout were 

distributed throughout the Deschutes River basin from the headwaters and headwater lakes to the 

Columbia River, allowing access to the Columbia River for juvenile rearing and adult foraging 

(Buchanan et al. 1997). The subpopulations are isolated by the Pelton-Round Butte Project dams 

on the Deschutes River between RM 100 and 110, and Big Falls, a natural barrier at about RM 

132. Bull trout are thought to be extirpated in up to seven reaches or tributaries within the 

Deschutes River basin (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

At the time of listing, bull trout had been extirpated from their historic habitats in the upper and 

middle Deschutes above Big Falls. Five populations of bull trout currently exist in the basin. 

These are located in Shitike Creek, Warm Springs River, Whitewater River, Jefferson/Candle/ 

Abbot complex, and the Canyon/Jack/Heising/mainstem Metolious complex. 

In November 2002, a proposed rule for bull trout critical habitat in the Columbia and Klamath 

River basins was published in the Federal Register by the USFWS. This proposal includes bull 

trout critical habitat for the Deschutes River basin. Originally, a final decision was expected in 

October 2003; however, USFWS is proposing deferring work to develop a final rule until fiscal 

year 2004 because of lack of funding (http://endangeredfish.gov/criticalhabitat/chactions.pdf.) 

Critical habitat refers to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a 

September 2003 – Final 4-7 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations. 

Reclamation will not be consulting on critical habitat in this BA. 

The USFWS prepared a draft recovery plan for bull trout in November 2002. The USFWS is 

anticipating completion of final bull trout recovery plans in 2004. Recovery plans are a much 

larger blueprint for the recovery and eventual delisting of a species, as it provides 

recommendations concerning habitat and various other factors that need to be addressed to 

achieve recovery. 

4.3.2 Historical Distribution 

Historical distribution of bull trout in the Deschutes River basin is summarized herein from 

Buchanan, et al. (1997). Bull trout were historically found throughout much of the Deschutes 

River basin (Figure 4-2). Bull trout populations upstream from Big Falls (RM 132) were 

apparently reproductively isolated from populations in the lower river. Historically, adfluvial 

populations of bull trout were also present in the Blue/Suttle Lake complex, in the upper 

Metolius River basin, and in Crescent and Davis Lakes of the upper Deschutes basin. 

Isolation of upper Deschutes River basin bull trout populations occurred upon completion of 

upper basin irrigation storage dams. The completion of Crane Prairie Dam in 1922, Crescent 

Lake in 1928, and Wickiup Dam in 1949, all without fish passage facilities, blocked access for 

adult bull trout migrating to upper Deschutes River spawning areas. Increased water 

temperatures, altered streamflow regimes, inundation of some juvenile rearing areas and adult 

spawning areas, barriers to spawning areas, competition with non-native fish species, and overharvest eliminated remnant bull trout populations in the Deschutes River above Big Falls during 

the 1950s. 

The last bull trout observed in Crane Prairie Reservoir was in 1955, in Wickiup Reservoir in 

1957, and in Crescent Lake in 1959. The last bull trout observed in the Deschutes River above 

Bend was in 1954. Ratliff and Howell (1992) listed two bull trout populations, upper Deschutes 

River and Crescent Lake, as “probably extinct.” There may have been separate populations in 

the Fall River and Tumalo Creek, but spawning was not documented in these systems and bull 

trout are no longer found there. 

Construction of Round Butte Dam in 1964 and the subsequent abandonment of passage facilities 

in 1968 isolated the Metolius River bull trout populations from those found downstream in 

Shitike Creek and the Warm Springs River. Bull trout are no longer found in Trout Creek, 

although they were reported there in 1960. Fluvial subpopulations in Shitike Creek and Warm 

Springs River contributed and still contribute bull trout into the lower Deschutes River. 

The Blue Lake-Link Creek-Suttle Lake bull trout group in the Metolius subbasin has been 

extirpated, possibly due to overharvest and/or creation of passage barriers on Lake and Link 

Creeks (Marx 2000). 

4-8 September 2003 – Final 
0 20 40

Miles

Deschutes River Basin 

Bull Trout 

122°W 121°W 120°W 

45°N 

!! !!

W

r

!!

!!

!!

tu

!!

!!

tu

tu

!!

Opal

"\

tu

Bend 

Maupin 

r 

Sisters 126 Redmond 

The Dalles 

Hood River t97 r 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

tu20

tu26

tu395

97

197

30

tu26

u

eek 

 ́

20

White River Buck Hollow C

Metolius River 

Crooked River 

Deschutes R v

w

C

i

ree

e

Prineville Reservoir 

Columbia Rive

Odell D e schutes R

Reservoir iver 

Squa

Big 

k 

a

m

prings Riv

Indian Reservation S

er 

Shitike reek 

r

C

Bakeove

216 Sources: n C

reek 

Lake Wickiup 

Waldo 

Cultus Crane Prairie 

Lake Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Little 

Clear Lake shown within the 

Dam

and Wasco Dam 

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2002

 Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

Current and historic 

bull trout distribution 

Historic bull trout distribution 

only (no known current 

distribution) 

Species data are only 

Deschutes River Basin. 

NOTE

Falls 

58

Deschutes River Basin 

Steelhead Falls 

31

216

Warm Springs 

Creek

Tr ou t 

Springs

45°N 

44°N 

44°N 

122°W 121°W 120°W Figure 4-2 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4-10 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The first extensive fish surveys in the Crooked River subbasin were conducted in the 1950s. By 

this time, the basin had experienced years of water withdrawal that radically altered riparian 

areas. Wandering subadult and adult bull trout, likely from the Metolius system, were 

occasionally caught in the Crooked River as far upstream as the city of Prineville through the 

early 1980s. However, the 1983 enlargement of the Opal Springs Diversion Dam, owned by the 

Deschutes Valley Water District, on the lower Crooked River created an upstream barrier to bull 

trout and other fish. 

4.3.3 Present Distribution 

Information about the current distribution of bull trout in the Deschutes River basin is 

summarized from Buchanan et al. 1997. Current and historic distribution of bull trout in the 

basin based on documented reports is portrayed in Figure 4-2. Of the historical adfluvial bull 

trout population in Oregon, only the Odell Lake population continues to produce bull trout. The 

abundance of the Odell Lake population remains unknown. However, angler observations of 

bull trout incidentally caught in the kokanee fishery have been increasing since the harvest of 

bull trout was prohibited after 1990. 

Bull trout currently inhabit most riverine habitats of the Metolius subbasin except Lake Creek, 

Link Creek, and Suttle and Blue Lakes. The Metolius River, Lake Billy Chinook Reservoir, the 

Deschutes River above Lake Billy Chinook upstream to Big Falls, and the lower part of Crooked 

River up to the Opal Springs Dam also support bull trout. Bull trout also use lower Squaw 

Creek, a tributary to the Deschutes River above Lake Billy Chinook. Bull trout found in the 

Deschutes River between Lake Billy Chinook and Big Falls, as well as the lower Crooked River 

and Squaw Creek, appear to originate from the Metolius River and its tributaries, as these are the 

only sites for which there is evidence of bull trout reproduction above Round Butte Dam (Ratliff 

et al. 1996, Thiesfield et al. 1996). Extensive surveys of the Deschutes arm of Lake Billy 

Chinook have not captured significant numbers of juveniles or the stratified age structure typical 

of a reproductive population of bull trout (as is seen in surveys near the mouth of the Metolius 

River), but instead reflects a population of foraging migratory or adfluvial fish originating from 

the Metolius River (Thiesfield et al. 1996). 

Bull trout are found in the lower Deschutes River upstream from Sherars Falls, Shitike Creek, 

and Warm Springs River. Anglers, as recently as 2002, have reported higher incidental hooking 

of bull trout in the Deschutes River, which may indicate that the population is increasing. One or 

two adult bull trout are caught in the Pelton Dam trap each year. 

4.3.4 General Life History 

Bull trout generally exhibit two distinct life history forms–migrant and resident. Migrant fish 

emigrate from the small streams where the juveniles rear to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes 

(adfluvial). Resident fish remain in the rearing streams and mature there. Table 4-2 (Knowles 

and Gumtow 1996) summarizes the general life history of bull trout. 

September 2003 – Final 4-11 
 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 4-2. Bull Trout Life History Summary 

Life Conditions Criteria/Facts 

Age at first reproduction 4-5 years 

Number of eggs produced 1,300 to 9,000 

Maximum size Greater than 30 pounds and 36 inches 

Life span Up to 10 years 

Food habits Juveniles are insectivorous. Adults are piscivorus. 

Incubation success Water temperature critical: 

32-36 EF = 80-95 percent 

43 EF = 60-90 percent 

46-48 EF = 0-20 percent 

Sediment size:

 20 percent fines = 40 percent

 30 percent fines = 20 percent

 40 percent fines = 1 percent 

Migration strategies Resident, adfluvial, fluvial, and anadromous 

Closely related species Dolly Varden, lake trout, and brook trout 

Optimal and maximum water 

temperature 

Juveniles = 39-48 EF and 59 EF 

Adults = 39-48 EF and 64 EF 

Spawning season September through November 

Source: Knowles and Gumtow 1996 

Bull trout can live up to 10 years and are sexually mature after 4 or 5 years. They spawn during 

September through November, in cold, flowing groundwater-fed streams that are clean and free 

of sediment. The incubation period for bull trout is extremely long, and young fry may take up 

to 225 days to emerge from the gravel. Juvenile bull trout mature slowly, often spawning for the 

first time in their fourth or fifth year. 

Migrant bull trout usually emigrate from their rearing streams at 2-3 years of age when they are 

6-8 inches long; however, younger fish may occasionally outmigrate earlier (Elle et al. 1994). 

They move downstream to a river or lake and find feeding sites. After entering the river or lake, 

juvenile bull trout grow rapidly, often reaching over 20 inches long and 2 pounds by the time 

they are 5-6 years old. The Oregon bull trout record is 23 pounds, 2 ounces, taken from Lake 

Billy Chinook in 1985 (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

Migratory bull trout live several years in larger rivers or lakes, where they grow to a much larger 

size than resident forms before returning to tributaries to spawn. Growth differs little between 

forms during their first years of life in headwater streams, but diverges as migratory fish move 

into larger and more productive waters (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident and migratory 

forms may live together, but it is unknown if they represent a single population or separate 

4-12 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Migratory forms of bull trout appear to use much of 

the river basin that they are located in through their life cycle (Batt 1996). Adfluvial mature bull 

trout appear to reside in reservoirs for about 6 months from November to June. 

It appears that most bull trout, even those not ready to spawn, migrate upstream beginning in 

May-June and return to mainstem rivers or lakes in November-December. This migration may 

be in part to avoid high summertime water temperatures in some areas or insufficient flows or 

water levels. Rieman and McIntyre (1993) indicate that diverse life-history strategies are 

important to the stability and persistence of populations of any species. Such diversity is thought 

to stabilize populations in highly variable environments or to refound segments of populations 

that have disappeared. 

Variation in the timing of outmigration and in the timing and frequency of spawning also 

represents diversity in life history. Bull trout may spawn each year or in alternate years (see 

Block 1955 in Batt 1996). It is possible that four or more year classes could compose any 

spawning population, with each year class including up to three outmigration strategies. This 

theory supports the idea that the multiple life-history strategies found in bull trout populations 

represent important diversity (both spatial and genetic) within populations. 

4.3.5 Habitat Requirements 

Bull trout have some of the most demanding habitat requirements of any native trout species, 

mainly because they require water that is especially cold and clean. Eggs are extremely 

vulnerable to siltation problems and bed load movement during the long incubation period. Any 

activity that causes erosion, increased siltation, removal of stream cover, or changes in waterflow 

or temperature affects the number of bull trout that hatch and their ability to survive to maturity 

(Knowles and Gumtow 1996). 

In general, bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids. 

Outside of the reservoirs, channel stability, winter high flows, summer low flows, substrate, 

cover, temperature, and the presence of migration corridors consistently appear to influence bull 

trout distribution and abundance (see Allen 1980 in Batt 1996). 

Water temperature is a critical habitat characteristic for bull trout. Temperatures above 59°F are 

thought to limit bull trout distribution (Allen 1980 in Batt 1996). Optimum water temperatures 

for rearing are thought to be 45-46°F (Allan et al. in Batt 1996). Researchers recognized water 

temperature more consistently than any other factor influencing bull trout distribution. However, 

it is poorly understood whether the influence of temperature is consistent throughout life or 

whether a particular stage is especially sensitive. 

Bull trout have voracious appetites and take full advantage of any and all food sources available 

to them. Fish are considered to be the major item in the diet of large bull trout. They feed 

primarily along the bottom and up to mid-water levels, consuming insects and other fish species 

September 2003 – Final 4-13 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

such as suckers, sculpins, minnows, and trout. Mountain whitefish are one of the bull trout’s 

preferred prey (Knowles and Gumtow 1996). 

Adult adfluvial bull trout generally spend about one half of every year associated with a natural 

or man-made lake (generally November-May). These fish most likely forage in shallow areas 

where the majority of prey exists. Depending on water conditions, bull trout will occupy deeper 

areas of the reservoir where water temperatures are cooler (45-54°F) and move to the surface 

when surface water temperatures drop to or below 54°F. 

4.4 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD 

4.4.1 Status 

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), that occupy the lower Deschutes River are part of the Middle 

Columbia River ESU that is currently listed as threatened by the NMFS (Federal Register 

64:4517) under the ESA. Critical habitat designated February 16, 2000 for this ESU (Federal 

Register 65:7764) has been withdrawn effective May 30, 2002 (Stone 2002). The MCR 

steelhead ESU includes native wild steelhead populations occurring in the Columbia River east 

of the Cascades, excluding the Hood River in Oregon, and Wind River in Washington, up to and 

including the Yakima River, but not including the Snake River populations, which constitute a 

separate ESU. Hatchery steelhead in this MCR ESU are not listed. 

According to NMFS (2000a) and Busby et al. (1996), current population sizes in this ESU are 

substantially lower than historic levels, especially in the rivers with the largest MCR steelhead 

runs in the ESU: the John Day, Deschutes, and Yakima Rivers. The John Day may be the most 

robust of these three populations (NMFS 2000a). Busby et al. (1996) indicated that the run size 

to the MCR steelhead ESU could have been in excess of 300,000 fish. At least two extinctions 

of native wild steelhead runs in the ESU have occurred, the Crooked and Metolius Rivers, both 

in the Deschutes River basin (Federal Register 65:7764). The loss of these runs is due primarily 

to blockage of the migration corridor by the Pelton-Round Butte Project (Federal Register 

65:7764). 

4.4.2 Distribution 

Nehlsen (1995) provided a fairly comprehensive review of historical steelhead runs and their 

environment in the Deschutes River basin upstream from the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric 

Project. Steelhead spawned in major tributaries of the upper Deschutes River above PeltonRound Butte Project (Squaw Creek and the Crooked River); historic occurrence of steelhead in 

the Metolius River is uncertain and equivocal (NPPC 1990; Lichatowich et al. 1998). Steelhead 

were documented up to 120 miles from the mouth of the Crooked River (Nehlsen 1995). 

Historic and current distribution of Deschutes River steelhead is shown in Figure 4-3. 

4-14 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

0 20 40

Miles

44°N 

45°N 

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Ochoco Creek

McKay Creek 

B a k eo v en Cr eek 

Paulina Cr. 

Horse Heaven Cr. 

North F

§ ̈¦84

tu20

tu26

tu97

tu197

tu30

tu97

tu20 tu26

Bend 

Redmond Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

122°W 

122°W 

121°W 

121°W 

Metolius River 

Crook

Columbia Rive r 

Deschutes River 

Squa w

Creek 

Trout 

Creek 

Shitike Creek 

Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Waldo 

Lake 

Cultus 

Lake 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Little 

Clear Lake 

and Wasco Dam 

Warm Springs R. 

Des chutes Rive r 

Maupin 

W h ite River Clear 

Creek 

Wapinitia 

Creek 

Big 

Falls 

216

216

126

31

58

Steelhead Falls 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

Beaver Cr. 

Paulina Cr. 

ork Crooked R. 

Twel vemile Creek 

tu395

120°W 

120°W 

44°N 

45°N 

Sources:

 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2002

 Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

ed River 

South Fork Crooked River 

 ́

Current and historic 

summer steelhead 

distribution 

Historic summer steelhead 

distribution only (no known 

current distribution) 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

NOTE

Deschutes River Basin 

Figure 4-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4-16 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

In the early part of the past decade, naturally produced steelhead in the Deschutes River 

declined; however, ODFW (2002) reported that escapement in the Deschutes River during the 

years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 show an increasing trend that may be due in part to 

improved environmental conditions. 

Where resident and anadromous forms of O. mykiss co-occur, the relationship between these two 

forms has been questioned as to whether resident O. mykiss contribute to the population 

dynamics and abundance of anadromous O. mykiss and provide a buffer against steelhead 

extinction. The two forms represent genetically distinct populations or two “ecophenotypes” 

within a single gene pool (Zimmerman and Reeves 1998). Zimmerman and Reeves (2000) 

reported that in the Deschutes River, based on microprobe analysis of Sr/Ca (strontium/calcium) 

ratio in otoliths, steelhead and rainbow trout are reproductively isolated. That is to say, adult 

steelhead from the Deschutes River that they tested were progeny of steelhead females and 

resident rainbow trout were progeny of resident rainbow trout. There was also spatial and 

temporal separation of spawning in these two forms (Zimmerman and Reeves 1998). 

Fish passage for Chinook salmon and steelhead was attempted at the Pelton-Round Butte Project 

soon after its construction, with limited success. Passage of adults upstream was relatively 

successful, but from their upstream rearing habitats, downstream migrating smolts apparently 

became disoriented once they entered Lake Billy Chinook and did not move directly through the 

reservoir to an outlet. It became apparent in the late 1960s that upriver salmonid runs could not 

be sustained naturally with these facilities. Therefore, the efforts to maintain naturally spawning 

salmonid populations upstream from Pelton-Round Butte were abandoned and hatchery 

compensation was initiated in 1968 (Nehlsen 1995). In 1970, Portland General Electric agreed 

to finance the operation of an anadromous fish hatchery at the base of Pelton-Round Butte Dam. 

The hatchery began operation in 1972 (NPPC 1990). 

NMFS (2000a) believes that one of the most significant sources of risk to steelhead in the MCR 

ESU is the recent and dramatic increase in the percentage of hatchery fish escapement in the 

Deschutes River basin. ODFW (2002) has estimated from capture of adult steelhead at Sherars 

Falls (RM 42) that in recent years, the percentage of hatchery steelhead strays in the Deschutes 

River has exceeded 70 percent, and many of these are believed to be long-distance strays from 

outside the ESU, based on differential marking. Coincident with this increase in the percentage 

of strays was a corresponding decline in the abundance of native wild steelhead in the Deschutes 

River. NMFS (2000a) stated that in combination with the increasing trend in hatchery fish in the 

Deschutes River, estimates of increased proportions of hatchery fish in the John Day and 

Umatilla River basins pose a risk to native wild steelhead due to negative effects of genetic and 

ecological interactions with hatchery fish. The downriver transportation of juvenile hatchery 

steelhead from upriver locations may contribute to increasing numbers of strays in the Deschutes 

River (NPPC 1990). 

September 2003 – Final 4-17 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4.4.3 Life History 

Biologists classify steelhead into two reproductive ecotypes according to their level of sexual 

maturity when they enter freshwater and the duration of their spawning migration. Stream 

maturing or summer steelhead enter freshwater in the spring and summer in a sexually immature 

condition. They require several months in freshwater to mature prior to spawning. Ocean 

maturing or winter steelhead enter freshwater in the fall and winter in a sexually mature 

condition ready to spawn (NMFS 1996). Most Deschutes River steelhead outmigrate at age 2 

and spend 1 to 2 years in salt water before returning to spawn; these returning adults are referred 

to as 1-ocean and 2-ocean fish, respectively. 

Adult inland steelhead, the anadromous form of resident redband trout, are found in Columbia 

River tributaries east of the Cascade Mountains, including the Deschutes River. Winter 

steelhead occur in Mosier, Chenowith, Mill, and Fifteenmile Creeks, Oregon; and in the Klickitat 

and White Salmon Rivers in Washington, all of which are downstream from The Dalles Dam, 

although east of the Cascade Mountains (NMFS 2000a). 

All steelhead upstream from The Dalles Dam are summer-run fish. Summer-run steelhead are 

further divided into A-run and B-run fish. A-run adult summer steelhead are those inland 

Columbia River steelhead that pass Bonneville Dam up to 25 August, they are predominantly 

age-1-ocean, and are less than 77.5 cm in length (Schriever 2002). B-run summer steelhead pass 

Bonneville Dam after 25 August, are predominantly age-2-ocean, and are larger than 77.5 cm. 

Deschutes River steelhead are typical of A-run fish. B-run steelhead have a limited distribution 

in some Snake River tributaries, and are differentiated by size but not date of passage at Lower 

Granite Dam. 

4.4.4 Habitat Requirements 

In general, summer-run fish enter freshwater 9 to 10 months prior to spawning and ascend the 

Columbia River from June through October. They spawn from late winter through spring. 

Deschutes River wild steelhead spawn from about the middle of March to the end of May 

(Zimmerman and Reeves 1998). Spawning habitat requirements would typically include water 

depths of 9 inches to 5 feet, water velocity from 1 to 3 feet per second, and a largely sedimentfree substrate with gravel to cobble sized from 0.5 to 4 inches in diameter. Spawning females 

construct several nests in each redd. They usually pair with a dominant male, but sometimes 

they spawn with different males for each nest. The number of eggs varies between 200 and 

9,000, depending on fish size and stock. Adult steelhead, unlike salmon, do not necessarily die 

after spawning, but may return to the ocean to grow for another year and return to freshwater to 

spawn again. However, iteroparity (capability of spawning more than once) is not common 

among steelhead migrating more than several hundred miles upstream from the ocean; the 

number of repeat spawners in the Deschutes River is very low (NPPC 1990). 

4-18 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Fecundity of wild summer steelhead in the Deschutes River ranged from 3,093 to 10,480 eggs 

per female, with a mean of 5,341 eggs (NPPC 1990). Average fecundity was higher for age-2­

ocean fish. 

Eggs hatch in 35 to 50 days, depending on water temperature (about 50 days at 50 °F [10 °C]). 

Following hatching, alevins remain in the gravel 2 to 3 weeks until the yolk sac is absorbed. 

About 65-85 percent of the fertilized eggs survive to emerge as fry, while egg to smolt survival is 

estimated to be 0.75 percent. Steelhead fry emerge from redds in the middle to late summer. 

Following emergence, fry usually move into shallow and slow-moving margins of stream 

channels. As they grow, they move to areas with deeper water, a wider range of velocities, and 

larger substrate, sometimes emigrating from tributaries to the mainstem for a period of time prior 

to smolting (NPPC 1990). During winter, fry select areas with relatively low velocity and 

conceal themselves among cobble or rubble substrate. 

Information on habitat carrying capacity for summer steelhead in the lower Deschutes River 

subbasin is not available, although the NPPC (1990) Subbasin Plan stated that the standard 

estimate of potential smolt production is 513,636 smolts. ODFW (1987, cited in NPPC 1990) 

estimated maximum steelhead production capacity at 147,659 smolts. 

Juvenile steelhead (parr) rear in freshwater for 1 to 4 years, depending on water temperature and 

growth rates. Downstream migration and smoltification typically occurs from April to mid-June 

when parr reach a size of 6-8 inches (15-20 cm). Life history information for MCR steelhead 

indicates that most of these steelhead smolt at 2 years and spend 1 to 2 years in salt water (1­

ocean and 2-ocean fish, respectively) prior to re-entering fresh water, where they may remain for 

up to a year prior to spawning. Pribyl (2002) noted that juvenile Deschutes River steelhead 

generally spend 2 years in freshwater. Returning adults are about equally divided between 1­

ocean and 2-ocean fish. 

Diet of steelhead varies considerably according to life history stage and fish size as well as the 

food items that are available. Juvenile steelhead feed primarily on benthic macroinvertebrates 

associated with the stream substrate such as immature aquatic insects (e.g., mayfly and stonefly 

nymphs and caddisfly, dipteran, and beetle larvae), amphipods, snails, aquatic worms, fish eggs, 

and occasionally small fish. Diets of juveniles can fluctuate seasonally, depending on food 

availability. At times the diet may include terrestrial insects and emerging adult aquatic insects 

drifting in the current. In estuaries, steelhead smolts initially feed on invertebrates, but as they 

grow they begin to feed on larger prey more typical of their diet at sea, which may include 

crustaceans, and eventually squid, herring, and other fish species. 

At any time of the year in the lower Deschutes River and its major tributaries, some life stage of 

steelhead are present, either migrating, rearing, or spawning adult fish; incubating eggs or 

developing fry; or rearing or migrating juvenile fish (NPPC 1990). Steelhead may be seasonally 

absent from smaller tributaries where environmental conditions become unfavorable, such as 

eastside tributaries that warm up or have reduced flow during the summer. 

September 2003 – Final 4-19 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4.5 CANADA LYNX 

4.5.1 Status 

In April 2000, the USFWS listed the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) as threatened under the 

ESA across the contiguous United States. The United States listing provides protection for lynx 

within 13 states, including Oregon. The USFWS will develop a proposal to be used for the 

designation of critical habitat in the future. A recovery plan has not yet been developed; 

however, in February 2000, the USFS and the USFWS signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement 

and Strategy which will promote the conservation of lynx and lynx habitat on Federal land 

managed by the Forest Service (Federal Register 65:16052). 

4.5.2 Distribution, Life History, and Habitat Requirements 

The Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs; large, well-furred paws; long tufts on the 

ears; and a short, black-tipped tail. On average, males weigh 22 pounds and are 33.5 inches in 

length (head to tail); females weigh 19 pounds and are 32 inches in length (Federal Register 

65:16052). 

In the contiguous United States, the historic range of the Canada lynx includes forests of the 

Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon (Figure 4-4). In particular, within the West, lynx 

primarily inhabit subalpine coniferous forests that receive deep snow, for which they are highly 

adapted. Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), also specialized to survive in areas that receive 

deep snow, are the primary prey of the lynx. Lynx and snowshoe hare are considered to have a 

classic predator-prey relationship, with lynx populations fluctuating on an approximate 10-year 

cycle following the hare population cycle. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) are an 

important alternate prey when snowshoe hare populations are low (Federal Register 65:16052). 

Further study into the dynamics of lynx-hare interaction is critical; rather than analyzing only the 

relationship between lynx and snowshoe hare, research into the hare cycle which is produced by 

an interaction between predation and food supplies is necessary (Krebs 2001). The USFWS 

states, “It is imperative that snowshoe hare and alternate prey populations be supported by 

appropriate habitat management on Federal lands into the future to ensure the conservation of 

lynx in the contiguous United States” (Federal Register 65:16052). 

The USFWS determined that lynx in the lower 48 states emanated from a larger metapopulation 

whose core is located in the northern boreal forest of central Canada. This boreal forest naturally 

becomes fragmented at its southern margins where it transitions into other vegetation types. 

Lower snowshoe hare densities are a result of this patchy, transitional habitat, as well as the 

presence of more predators and competitors of hares at southern latitudes. It is unknown as to 

the extent to which the northern lynx populations influence lynx occurrence in the contiguous 

United States. But because of the naturally fragmented habitat and lower hare densities, it is 

expected that lynx in the southern boreal forest naturally occur at lower numbers than in the 

north (Federal Register 65:16052). 

4-20 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

In the Cascades region, including Washington and Oregon, most lynx occurrences are found 

within conifer forests consisting of Douglas fir and western spruce/fir and at elevations between 

3,200 and 6,100 feet. Older, mature forests contain large woody debris such as downed logs and 

windfall that provide habitat for denning sites, escape cover, and protection from severe weather. 

It appears that for den sites, the age of the forest stand is not nearly as important as the amount of 

downed woody debris available. Snowshoe hare use these areas and earlier successional forests 

with dense understories that provide forage, cover, escape routes, and protection from severe 

weather. Forest structure that provides food and cover for snowshoe hare and cover for lynx 

dens is determined to be more important than specific vegetation found within the forest type 

(BLM and USFS 2001; Federal Register 65:16052). 

4.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 

4.6.1 Status 

In July 1990, the USFWS listed the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) as 

threatened under the ESA throughout its entire range, including western Oregon. Designated 

CHU on Federal lands became effective February 1992, providing additional protection to the 

spotted owl with regard to Federal activities (Federal Register 57:1796). In 1994, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) published the Northwest Forest Plan. In theory, the plan 

would aid in the conservation of the spotted owl by allowing currently non-suitable, but 

potential, habitat to regenerate within Late-Successional Reserves, which in turn would allow the 

population to eventually stabilize across its range. Many CHUs overlap with Late-Successional 

Reserves within the known spotted owl range in western Oregon (Tuchmann 1996, BLM and 

USFS 2001). In 1992, the USFWS developed a draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, 

but at this time a final recovery plan has not been published. 

4.6.2 Distribution, Life History, and Habitat Requirements 

The northern spotted owl is a medium-sized owl with dark eyes, chocolate brown coloring with 

round to elliptical white spots on the body, and white bars on the tail. The adult female is 

slightly larger than the male (Federal Register 55:26114). 

The current range of the northern spotted owl is southwestern British Columbia, western 

Washington, western Oregon, and the coast range area of northwestern California south to San 

Francisco Bay (Figure 4-5). The majority of spotted owls are found in the Cascades of Oregon 

and the Klamath Mountains in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California (Federal 

Register 55:26114). 

September 2003 – Final 4-21 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Northern spotted owls are long-lived and monogamous, mating for life. These pairs usually do 

not nest every year, nor are nesting pairs successful every year. It has been suggested that 

fluctuations in reproductive activity may be related to fluctuations in prey availability. Nesting 

activity begins between February and March, with one to four eggs laid soon after. Fledging 

occurs between mid-May and June, with parental care continuing into September. At that time, 

the juvenile owls are on their own. It has been estimated that only 18 percent of sub-adult 

spotted owls survive their first year, with predation by great horned owls and starvation the two 

main causes of mortality (Federal Register 55:26114). 

Adult northern spotted owls maintain a territory year-round, with home ranges varying in size 

depending on the time of year (breeding and nonbreeding season), the amount of old-growth and 

mature forest available, and prey base. Within Oregon, median annual pair home ranges were 

estimated to be 2,955 acres for the Cascades and 4,766 acres for the coast (Federal Register 

55:26114). 

Northern spotted owls primarily occur in old-growth and mature forest habitats, but may also be 

found in younger forests that contain the necessary structures, vegetation, and prey. Suitable 

spotted owl habitat has 60-80 percent canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy 

dominated by large (>30 inches diameter at breast height) overstory trees; an abundance of large 

trees with various deformities (i.e. cavities, snags); large accumulations of fallen trees and other 

woody debris; and adequate open space below the canopy for flight. These necessary 

components are most often associated with stands aged 200+ years. However, spotted owls have 

been observed using relatively young forests (60+ years) that contain key components of suitable 

owl habitat, particularly those with significant remains of earlier stands that were affected by 

fire, wind storms, and inefficient logging. Northern spotted owls are primarily nocturnal 

predators of small mammals such as flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), red tree voles 

(Arborimus longicaudus), and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) (Federal Register 

55:26114). 

4-22 September 2003 – Final 
!(207

!(19

!(74

!(74

 

 

0 20 40

Miles

Deschutes River Basin 

Canada lynx 

122°W 121°W 120°W 

45°N 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!(14 

!(31 

!(22 

!(218 

!(206 

!(35 

!(58 

!(242 

!(216 

!(126 

!( !(142

141 

!(19 

!(216 

!(126 

§ ̈¦84

tu20

tu26

tu395

tu97

tu197

tu30

tu26

tu97

tu20

Bend 

Maupin 

Redmond 

Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

Sources:

 Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 2002

 US Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

Whi t e River 

M e tolius River 

Crooked River 

Deschutes River 

C o l umbia Rive r 

D e schutes River 

Squa w

Creek 

Trout Creek 

War

k 

m Springs Rive r 

Shitik e C reek

Bakeoven Creek 

Lake Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Waldo 

Cultus 

Lake 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Buck Hollow Cree

 ́

Legend

!( Canada lynx 

Deschutes River Basin 

Little 

Clear Lake 

and Wasco Dam 

NOTE 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 45°N 

44°N 

44°N 

122°W 121°W 120°W Figure 4-4 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4-24 September 2003 – Final 
14

!(207

!(19

!(74

0 20 40

Miles

Deschutes River Basin 

Northern Spotted Owl 

122°W 121°W 120°W 

45°N 

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!(

!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(

!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( ! !( !(!( (!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !(!(!( !(

!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

(! !(

!

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

OR-1

OR-6

OR-5

OR-1

!(

!242 !(126 

!(

!(

tu § ̈¦84

tu

Bend 

Maupin 

Redmond 

Prineville 

!(

!(!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!( (

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

OR-11

OR-7

OR-2

OR-3

OR-4

!(

!(31 

!(22 

!(218 

206 

!(35 

!(58 

(

!(216 

!( 142

141 

!(216 

!(19 

126 

tu20

tu26

tu395

Reservoir tu97

tu197

30

tu26

97

Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River N. Spotted Owl 

Warm Springs 

Sources:

 Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 2002

 US Forest Service, 2002

 US Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04 2003 

W h i t e River 

C r o o k e d R i v e r 

C o l u m b i a R i v e r 

M e t o l i u s R i v e r 

D e s c h u t e s 

River 

D e s c h u t e s Rive r 

S q ua w 

Creek 

T r o u t Cr ee k 

Warm Sp r i n g s R i v e r 

S h i t i k e C r e e k 

Wickiup 

Res. 

Waldo 

Lake 

Cultus Lake Crane Prairie 

Crescent 

Lake 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

L i t t l e 

B a k e o v en Cre e k 

B u c k H o ll o w Creek 

Legend

!( NRF territories 

Critical Habitat Unit 

Deschutes River Basin 

 ́ Clear Lake 

and Wasco Dam 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

NOTE 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

45°N 

44°N 

44°N 

122°W 121°W 120°W Figure 4-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

4-26 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

CHAPTER 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

The environmental baseline describes the impacts of past and ongoing human and natural 

factors leading to the present status of the species and its habitat within the action area. 

The environmental baseline provides a “snapshot” of the relevant species’ health at a 

specified point in time (i.e., the present). The environmental baseline includes past and 

present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the 

action area (50 CFR § 402.2). Therefore, all existing facilities and all previous and 

current effects of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Deschutes, Crooked 

River, and Wapinitia Projects are part of the environmental baseline. The environmental 

baseline also includes state, tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the species 

or habitat in the action area or actions that will occur contemporaneously with the 

consultation in progress. The environmental baseline assists both the action agency and 

the USFWS and NMFS in determining the effects of the proposed action on the listed 

species. The following section describes the effects of past and current activities as they 

relate to the current status of bald eagle, bull trout, MCR steelhead, Canada lynx, and 

northern spotted owl. 

5.2 BALD EAGLE 

5.2.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline 

Habitat loss and increasing human population will continue to be the greatest long-term 

threats to recovery of the bald eagle. Breeding, wintering, and foraging areas continue to 

be degraded by urban and recreational development and resource extraction activities. 

Shootings continue to be a problem for bald eagles. Electrocution is also an ongoing 

problem where powerlines do not conform to raptor protection standards. Nesting habitat 

quality downstream of dams may decline over the long term if flow releases do not 

permit perpetuation of forest riparian stands or if fisheries are negatively affected. 

Contamination of waterways from point and nonpoint sources of pollution is also a 

potential problem. Contaminants may affect the survival as well as the reproductive 

success and health of bald eagles. The abundance and quality of prey may be seriously 

affected by environmental contamination. Although many compounds implicated in 

reduced reproductive rates and direct mortality are no longer used, contaminants continue 

September 2003 – Final 5-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

to be a major problem in some areas. Pesticides in recent times have not affected the bald 

eagle on a population level; however, individual poisonings still occur. 

Reservoir drawdowns, low winter flows, or high ramping rates that reduce fish 

populations impact bald eagle food supplies. Low winter flows reduce habitat 

availability by reducing spatial rearing area and restrict fish populations to a few residual 

pools, increasing their vulnerability to predation. Low winter flows that result in 

increased ice cover can affect the availability of fish and may be a factor in heavily used 

areas. Reservoir open water areas may not be available to bald eagles during the late 

winter because of ice conditions. 

5.2.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area 

The Deschutes River basin supports a significant population of nesting and wintering 

bald eagles. The bald eagle population in the Deschutes basin (including Deschutes, 

Crook, Jefferson, and Wasco Counties as well as the very northwest tip of Klamath 

County) is in the High Cascades Recovery Zone (Isaacs and Anthony 2002). The Pacific 

Bald Eagle Recovery Plan identified recreation disturbance, logging, shooting, and 

trapping as the main threats for this zone. Since the plan’s approval, new habitat issues 

have evolved including: insect, disease, blowdown, wildfire, and timber harvest effects 

on large potential nesting or roosting trees (BLM and USFS 2001). BLM and the USFS 

(2001) have consulted on programmatic activities on their respective administered lands 

in the upper Deschutes River subbasin. 

Nesting activity in the High Cascades Recovery Zone has increased from 52 occupied 

breeding territories to 60 in the 5-year period from 1998 through 2002 (Isaacs and 

Anthony 2002). The number of young produced each year increased from 57 to 62 

during the same time period. The habitat management goal for this recovery zone has 

been 47 occupied nesting territories and the recovery population goal has been 33 (Isaacs 

and Anthony 1999). 

The 5-year (1998 through 2002) nesting success average was about 65 percent in the 

High Cascades Recovery Zone, and the 5-year average of young produced per occupied 

breeding territory was 1.00. These results are equal to those identified in the Pacific Bald 

Eagle Recovery Plan and similar to state of Oregon results of 64 percent success and 1.01 

young per occupied territory. 

5-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.2.2.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin 

Nesting Bald Eagles 

The upper Deschutes River subbasin above Bend contains the greater part of the bald 

eagle nesting population in the Deschutes basin (Figure 5-1). According to Isaacs and 

Anthony (2002) there are approximately 35 identified breeding (nesting) territories in this 

geographic area (Deschutes County and northern Klamath County), and they are mostly 

associated with the headwater lakes and reservoirs. For example: there is one breeding 

territory associated with Crescent Lake; about seven associated with Odell and Davis 

Lakes; two in the Lava Lake/Elk Lake area; about 17 associated with Crane Prairie and 

Wickiup Reservoirs and their tributaries; three along the Deschutes River below Wickiup 

Dam; one at East Lake on the Paulina Creek drainage; and two in the area north and west 

of Bend. Most nests are in the tops of large conifers, primarily ponderosa pine. A large 

blow-down of timber at Wickiup Reservoir has limited the availability of suitably sized 

nesting trees at the location (Morehead 1999). 

There are approximately 20 bald eagle breeding territories that are influenced by the 

operation of Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs (Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1). For the 

1972 through 2002 period of record, the number of occupied breeding territories in the 

vicinity of these two reservoirs has increased from 6 to 20 (Table 5-1). This increase is 

largely due to an expanding bald eagle population region-wide. The last 5-year average 

(1998 to 2002) has been between 18 and 20 occupied territories. The number of young 

produced over the period of record has varied from three in 1982 to 20 in 1999 and has 

generally been in an upward trend, similar to the number of occupied territories (Figure 

5-2). The last 5-year (1998 through 2002) average was between 17 and 18 young 

fledged. The last 5-year average success rate per occupied territory was about 60 percent 

and the 5-year average of young produced per occupied breeding territory was 0.91 – 

both being near, but slightly below, the recovery goals of 65 percent and 1.0 young per 

occupied territory. The average success rate and average young fledged has varied 

considerably over the period of record, but appears to have been on a slight decline 

overall (Figure 5-3). This may be due to the increased competition for space and prey as 

breeding pairs have begun to saturate the available habitat and/or to other annual 

environmental variables such as climate or prey availability. 

Eagles nesting in close association with project reservoirs and natural lakes in the upper 

Deschutes River subbasin are subject to a variety of disturbances, mostly associated with 

recreational uses of these resources. Some nesting pairs at project reservoirs appear to 

have grown somewhat tolerant of continued recreational activities such as fishing, 

boating, camping, vehicle traffic, etc., while other pairs have remained disturbed by such 

activities. Recreational issues of primary concern (i.e., have the most potential for 

disturbing nesting activities) are water surface activities. USFWS has suggested that 

September 2003 – Final 5-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

restricting access to some bays during the eagle nesting period would help reduce 

disturbance impacts on nesting eagles (Dillon 2002). 

The Deschutes National Forest administers the lands where the bald eagle nests are 

located. For most of the nesting territories, the USFS (2002) has established Bald Eagle 

Management Plans as indicated in Table 5-1. The Bald Eagle Management Plans include 

restrictions on recreational activities that may adversely affect breeding, nesting, and 

rearing activities; although these restrictions may be occasionally abused by 

undisciplined individuals. 

Wintering Bald Eagles 

Winter use by bald eagles of suitable habitats in the upper Deschutes River subbasin is 

dependent on winter conditions. When reservoirs, lakes, and streams remain ice-free, 

some eagles may remain at the higher elevation lakes and streams to prey on the resident 

fish populations (i.e., bald eagles both nest and winter at Wickiup Reservoir). The 

greatest winter use is in the Davis Lake arm of Wickiup Reservoir and in the Deschutes 

River arm below Crane Prairie Reservoir. These areas are most likely to remain ice-free. 

In extreme winter conditions when ice cover precludes prey availability in high elevation 

lakes and streams, most bald eagles move to lower elevations or migrate to lower basins 

to forage for food. A few bald eagles (possibly 10-12) forage along the upper Deschutes 

River during the winter season preying on fish and waterfowl which are in adequate 

supply (Morehead 1999). However, lower winter flows make this reach of river more 

susceptible to ice-cover and may, in some years, limit the availability of fish prey. 

5-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

!(31 

tu97

Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Crane 

Prairie 

Reservoir 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

0 3 6

Miles

Sources:

 Oregon State University, 2002

 Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 2002

 US Forest Service, 2002

 US Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 03, 2003 

 ́

Cultus Lake 

Lava Lake 

Deschutes River 

Little Deschutes River 

Legend

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs 

Bald Eagle 

!( Bald Eagle Nests (OSU) 

Bald Eagle Nesting Territories 

influenced by Crane Prairie 

and Wickiup Reservoirs 

Nesting Territories with Bald 

Eagle Management Plans 

NOTE 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

Deschutes River Basin 

Figure 5-1
 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5-6 September 2003 – Final 
5. 1 Table 1 Bald Eagle Nest Production - Vicinity of Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs 

Bald Eagle Nesting Territories 

Number of Young Observed per Occupied Bre

1972 - 2002 

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 

Associated with Crane Prairie Reservor: 

1. qCrane Prairie North East 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

2. qCrane Prairie East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

3. qCrane Prairie West 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 

4. qCrane Prairie South West 

5. qCrane Prairie South East 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 

6. Cultus River 

7. Quinn/Lemish Butte 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8. ~ Wuksi Butte 

Associated with Wickiup Reservoir: 

9. qBrown’s Mountain 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 

10. qBrown’s Creek 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 11. qBrown’s Crossing 

12. qWickiup Reservoir North 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

13. qWickiup Dam/Wickiup Res. East 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 

14. qEaton Butte 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15. qDavis Creek 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 

16. qRound Swamp 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 

17. qWickiup Reservoir South 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 

Associated with Deschutes River  (Downstream of Wickiup Dam) 

18. qTetherow Meadow 0 1 

19. qDeschutes River Oxbow 

20. qBates Butte 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 

ANNUAL TOTAL - # OF YOUNG 8 9 6 4 8 5 11 8 9 13 3 5 13 7 8 8 8 12 15 

Annual Total - # of Occupied BreedingAreas 

6 8 5 5 6 6 8 8 10 14 13 12 11 14 12 13 15 15 16 

Avg # Young /Occupied Breeding Area 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 

Avg Success Rate/Occupied Breeding Area (%) 

83 88 80 60 67 50 75 63 70 50 15 42 73 29 50 46 33 47 69 

2 

 0 

1 

 0 

 0 

 1 

q Bald Eagle Management Plans have been completed for these sites (Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes Natl. Forest, Bend OR). 

~ An essential habitat evaluation has been conducted for this site (Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes Natl. Forest, Bend OR). 0 Indicates an occupied breeding area, but no young raised or no young observed. 

1Nest occupancy and number of young observed is taken from: Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2002. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and the Washington p

Recovery Zone, 1972 through 2002. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State Univers

 Information on Bald Eagle Management Plans furnished by: Burchert, S. Feb. 4, 2001. Written Communication. Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes Natl. Forest, Bend OR

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

Number Observed 

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 0 2 

Years 

Total Young Observed Total Occupied Breeding Areas 

Annual Bald Eagle Production

At Crane Prairie & Wickiup Reservoirs 

Figure 5-2. Bald Eagle Production Success 

Figure 5-3. Bald Eagle Breeding Success 

September 2003 – Final 5-9 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.2.2.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin 

Nesting Bald Eagles 

The middle Deschutes River provides only limited habitat for bald eagle nesting because 

there is a paucity of suitable large conifers for nesting. Many of the nests in this area are 

associated with the Metolius River and its tributaries (Figure 4-1) as well as the other 

streams tributary to the west side of Lake Billy Chinook. Two nesting areas are on the 

upper Metolius, and eight are on the lower drainages immediately west of the Pelton-Round 

Butte Project reservoirs. The latter are all nest sites located in the upper branches of large 

ponderosa pine trees. Most of the nest trees are located in canyons or side slopes. There 

are concerns over human disturbance at nest sites in the vicinity of recreational activities 

(CTWSRO 1999). 

Breeding success and the production of young for nesting territories associated with the 

Pelton-Round Butte Project are available in Isaacs and Anthony (2002). Although these 

breeding territories have no direct link to Reclamation projects, a brief summary of nesting 

and production data is presented here for purposes of the environmental baseline 

discussion. 

The known number of occupied breeding territories in the Pelton-Round Butte Project area 

increased from 3 in 1989 to 8 in 2000 and remained at 8 during the 2001 and 2002 breeding 

seasons (CTWSRO and PGE 2002). The recent 5-year (1998 through 2002) average is 7.6 

occupied breeding territories and 5.0 successful territories. The number of young produced 

annually from 1989 through 2002 varied from 3 to 12 and the recent 5-year average is 7.4. 

The 5-year ratio of success versus occupied territories is 66 percent and the number of 

young/per occupied territories is 1.02–these are both slightly higher than the Oregon (1998 

through 2002) averages of 64 percent and 1.01 (Isaacs and Anthony 2002). 

Nesting pairs directly associated with Lake Billy Chinook have generally had good 

breeding success over the period of record. Other sites removed from Lake Billy Chinook 

have had mixed success (CTWSRO and PGE 2002). The reasons for unsuccessful nests are 

only partly known. In some years, breeding pairs have occupied their nesting territory, but 

for unknown reasons appear to have chosen not to nest. In a few instances, nests have 

blown out of the nest trees, resulting in nesting failure. Eggs and/or young have been 

observed early in the nesting season, but have been destroyed or disappeared altogether for 

unknown reasons prior to hatching or fledging. 

A devastating, lightning-caused wildfire in mid-July 2002 severely impacted the bald eagle 

habitat associated with Lake Billy Chinook (CTWSRO and PGE 2002). The Eyerly Fire, 

which started initially on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation near the upper end of the 

Metolius Arm of Lake Billy Chinook, spread south across the reservoir to Federal and 

private forest lands burning more than 18,000 acres and destroying the Eyerly, Spring 

5-10 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Creek, and Fly Creek nest sites. A fourth nest site in Big Canyon may have also been 

damaged or destroyed. 

Fish comprise the greater part of the diet for the nesting eagles in the middle Deschutes 

River subbasin. There is a strong dependence on kokanee from Lake Billy Chinook 

(CTWSRO 1999). Suckers, bass, mountain whitefish, and other fish species are also 

utilized along with bird species and small mammals. 

Wintering Bald Eagles 

The majority of bald eagle sightings in this area occur during the fall, winter, and spring 

months when eagles are wintering or migrating through the area. A migrant population of 

bald eagles has been frequenting the Metolius Arm of Lake Billy Chinook for many years 

to feed on kokanee, a reliable and predictable food source. Counts exceeding 200 birds 

have been recorded in this area (CTWSRO 1999). 

All of the resident bald eagles in this area roost in their territories and in nest trees during 

the fall and late winter. Two winter communal roosts are found along the Metolius River 

arm of Lake Billy Chinook, near Spring Creek. These roosts are in a coniferous old-growth 

stand, with an abundance of snags, in close proximity to foraging areas with some thermal 

cover from the surrounding topography. A separate fall communal roost used by migrating 

eagles is located near the confluence of the Metolius River with Lake Billy Chinook. The 

two bald eagle winter roost sites near Perry South Campground and Spring Creek burned in 

the July 2002 fire discussed above (CTWSRO and PGE 2002). 

5.2.2.3 Crooked River Subbasin 

Nesting Bald Eagles 

Isaacs and Anthony (2002) list 12 known nesting territories in Crook County, most of 

which are in the Crooked River subbasin (Figure 4-1). Seven of the territories are located 

at higher elevations upstream of project lands and reservoirs. One of these nests is located 

on Ochoco Creek, a few miles above Ochoco Reservoir. Three additional nests are located 

to the north of Prineville, a considerable distance from Crooked River Project lands. The 

only nesting territory in the vicinity of Reclamation project lands or facilities is at Prineville 

Reservoir, consisting of two nest sites. The traditional nest is located on north Alkali Flat, 

within 1⁄2-mile of the south side of Prineville Reservoir. While bald eagles had occasionally 

been observed at Prineville Reservoir during the summer months, the Alkali Flat nest, first 

reported in 1996 (Table 5-2), was the only nest documented in the area until the 2002 

nesting season (Isaac and Anthony 2002; Soules 1999). 

September 2003 – Final 5-11 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 5-2. Bald Eagle Nest Production - Vicinity of Prineville Reservoir 

North Alkali Flat 

Bald Eagle Nesting 

Territory 

Number of Young Observed 

1996 – 2002 

Year 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 

# of Young 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 

# of Occupied Breeding Areas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

The nest site on Alkali Flat is not directly influenced by recreational activities on the 

reservoir and is on BLM-administered lands. The nest is in a dead snag and is in poor 

physical condition. It may not provide a good nesting site for much longer (Zakrajsek 

2002, Clowers 2002). BLM has not prepared a formal Bald Eagle Management Plan for 

this nest site, but roads are closed and access in the vicinity of the nesting site is restricted 

during the breeding season (Dean 2002). 

Suitable nesting trees are scarce near the reservoir. Bald and golden eagles have been 

observed using a tree located on the south side of the reservoir at Sanford Creek. This tree 

has potential to become a nest tree, but would be very close to recreational boating 

activities on the reservoir.

 Zakrajsek (2002) and Clowers (2002) have suggested that the Alkali Flat nesting pair 

appears to be defending the entire reservoir against other potential new pairs. The female is 

showing signs of age and it is expected that there will be a change in the composition of the 

nesting pair in the near future. 

In 2002, the Alkali Flat resident pair of bald eagles established an alternate nest at Owl 

Creek, on the north side of the reservoir, also on BLM-administered lands. The nesting 

attempt was unsuccessful. The tree selected is not well suited to breeding and nesting; it is 

too small for breeding activity and is beginning to fail structurally. It is also within line of 

sight of and less than 1⁄4-mile from an established recreation access road. It has been 

speculated that the nest may have been built by the Alkali Flat pair as a defensive act and is 

probably used by the birds to help discourage other potential bald eagles from using this 

area (Zakrajsek 2002). Reclamation cooperated with the BLM, ODFW, and Oregon State 

Parks to close access roads in the immediate vicinity of the new nest during the nesting 

season. 

5-12 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reclamation recently completed a resource management planning process for lands 

surrounding Prineville Reservoir (Reclamation 2003b). As part of that planning process, 

Reclamation assessed the effects of land management practices on the bald eagles at the 

reservoir. Reclamation concluded that implementation of the resource management plan 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. USFWS concurred (2003) with 

Reclamation’s assessment based on the following measures which Reclamation is 

committed to implement to reduce potential human conflicts with bald eagles in the 

Prineville Reservoir area: 

1.	 Vehicle access around the reservoir will be controlled by seasonal road closures, 

barrier, signs, and increased enforcement. In addition, an annual review of current 

eagle activities at known nests will be used to determine the opening dates for some 

winter road closures. 

2.	 A bald eagle management plan will be developed in cooperation with ODFW, BLM, 

and USFWS. 

3.	 A comprehensive monitoring plan will be developed for bald eagle nest and roost 

sites. 

4.	 Dispersed camping at most of the popular camping areas around the reservoir will 

be limited to defined, designated campsites. 

Wintering Bald Eagles 

Bald eagles are mostly winter visitors to the Prineville and Ochoco Reservoir areas from 

December through April (Reclamation 1992). Weekly eagle counts between January and 

April have regularly observed bald eagles throughout the upper Crooked River drainage as 

well as the upper Prineville Reservoir area. Three winter communal roost sites have been 

identified on the steep slopes along the south side of Ochoco Reservoir, well upstream of 

the dam (Reclamation 1993). Waterfowl and fish, both available at Ochoco Reservoir, are 

important prey for wintering bald eagles. 

A study conducted by Isaacs et al. (1993) on eagles wintering along the upper Crooked 

River upstream of Prineville Reservoir in 1986 and 1987 found wintering/migrating bald 

eagles to be most abundant during the first 2 weeks of March, peaking at 115 birds. Eleven 

communal night roosts were identified in large conifers with one in a cottonwood. Deer 

and cattle carcasses were the primary food source for these eagles during January and 

February, while ground squirrels provided an important source of food during March and 

April. 

September 2003 – Final 5-13 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Bald eagles winter in the downstream Crooked River corridor below Bowman Dam 

(Prineville Reservoir). Historical reports indicate that the corridor supported their nesting 

in the past (BLM 1992). Observations of wintering eagles in the canyon have shown a 

steady increase. In recent years, counts have ranged between 8 to 10 birds, with the 

majority of them being bald eagles. Resident fish species (i.e., redband trout, hatchery 

rainbow, mountain whitefish, brown trout, bass, brown bullhead, sucker, and northern 

pikeminnow) in Prineville Reservoir and in the lower Crooked River, along with small 

mammal prey and carrion, provide winter forage for these eagles. 

5.2.3 Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat and Prey Base 

5.2.3.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin 

Nesting bald eagles in the upper Deschutes ecosystem rely heavily on the abundant prey 

base of resident fish populations in the streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Common species of 

prey include rainbow trout, brown trout, coho salmon, kokanee, and whitefish (USFS 

1996). Waterfowl and other birds and small mammals are incidental to fish prey. 

The availability of prey varies according to habitat conditions, production success, and 

annual stocking rates. Of the foregoing, habitat conditions in the project reservoirs are 

closely associated with reservoir operations. Dry year cycles, in particular, reduce the 

quality and quantity of available aquatic habitat, which may adversely affect fish 

production and/or longevity. Low reservoir levels and streamflows concentrate fish and 

make them more susceptible to predation. While this may be initially advantageous for 

bald eagles, it may lead to reduced fish populations in following years. 

Crane Prairie Reservoir 

Foraging habitat for nesting bald eagles at Crane Prairie Reservoir consists primarily of the 

open water area of the reservoir surface and several small tributary streams. The reservoir 

has a maximum capacity of about 55,300 acre-feet covering about 4,900 surfaces acres. At 

full pool, the average depth is 11 feet with a maximum of 20 feet. The shoreline has a 

length of about 22.3 miles. It is 4.9-miles-long and 2.2-miles-wide. The reservoir has no 

minimum pool restrictions, but the outlet structure is screened to prevent fish losses. 

The reservoir storage content has varied considerably from year to year and season to 

season depending on the water year and on withdrawals for irrigation (Figure 3-2). The 

reservoir storage at the end of October (going into the winter season) is critical for 

sustaining a productive reservoir fishery. The average end-of-October carryover has been 

about 23,000 acre-feet (about 42 percent full). 

5-14 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Fish prey are the most sought after prey for nesting eagles at Crane Prairie Reservoir. The 

eight bald eagle nesting pairs associated with Crane Prairie Reservoir must compete, not 

only among themselves, for the available fish prey, but also with high numbers of other 

piscivorous birds and anglers. 

Fies et al. (1996a) reported that bull trout, redband trout, and mountain whitefish were the 

indigenous fish species present in the Deschutes River when Crane Prairie Reservoir was 

first created in 1922. Bull trout are no longer found in this upper reach of the river. Crane 

Prairie Reservoir presently contains hatchery rainbow trout, brook trout, kokanee, mountain 

whitefish, largemouth bass, tui chub, and three-spined stickleback. Rainbow trout and 

kokanee are stocked in the reservoir on an annual basis. The other fish species are selfsustaining from previous stocking or illegal introductions. 

Crane Prairie Reservoir has long been recognized by ODFW (Fies et al. 1996a) and anglers 

as one of Oregon’s premier trout producing waters. The fishery has been managed as 

“basic yield” (using natural productivity with or without addition of hatchery stocks) for 

hatchery and naturally produced trout, whitefish, and largemouth bass. It is especially well 

known for producing large rainbow trout. Rainbow trout up to 13 pounds have been taken 

and 3-5 pound fish are common. 

Fies, et al. (1996a) stated that the “fish production potential in Crane Prairie Reservoir for 

all species is, apparently, limited primarily by reservoir pool level.” Current population 

levels of tui chubs and largemouth bass may also be a factor in limiting trout production. 

There is no minimum pool level for fish life; however, the reservoir typically stays above 

10,000 acre-feet. A minimum of 9,470 acre-feet was recorded in 1980 (Reclamation 

2003a). Another factor influencing reservoir pool levels is excessive water loss from the 

reservoir by leakage through broken lava flows along the shoreline (particularly at high 

storage levels). In fact, seepage can actually exceed annual irrigation releases (Reclamation 

2003a). 

Reduced reservoir levels during poor water years results in loss of (1) aquatic food 

production, (2) cover for juvenile fish rearing, and (3) access to spawning areas (Fies et al. 

1996a). The annual loss of trees in the reservoir has also resulted in the loss of fish and 

wildlife habitat. Standing dead timber in the reservoir is lost at an accelerated rate during 

low water years. Exposure to the air accelerates wood decay and trees are subsequently 

sheared at water level by a combination of ice and wind. 

An additional concern raised by anglers (Fies et al. 1996a) is predation on trout by a variety 

of fish-eating bird species. The primary species of concern have been cormorants and 

osprey. Other fish-eating birds present, in addition to bald eagles, include great blue 

herons, mergansers, kingfishers, gulls, grebes, and goldeneyes. Biologist have learned that 

water levels appeared to be the key factor in determining numbers of cormorants at Crane 

Prairie Reservoir. When the reservoir was low, more cormorants came to the reservoir to 

September 2003 – Final 5-15 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

take advantage of the concentrated food supply. For example, a high count of 730 

cormorants was reached in 1981, a poor water year (11,260 acre-feet at end of September). 

In 1982, a good water year (33,160 acre-feet at end of September), the high count was 295 

cormorants. 

The tributaries of Crane Prairie Reservoir provide varying amounts of trout spawning and 

rearing habitat for both reservoir and resident fish populations (Fies et al. 1996a). Of the 

approximately 13.5 total miles of tributary habitat available in Cultus and Deer Creeks and 

in Cultus, Quinn, and Deschutes Rivers, over three quarters of it is in the Deschutes River. 

Consequently, the small amount of habitat available in each stream, except the Deschutes 

River, may in itself limit the amount of potential fish production. 

Wickiup Reservoir 

Foraging habitat for nesting bald eagles at Wickiup Reservoir consists primarily of the open 

water area of the reservoir surface, the Deschutes River (above and below the reservoir), 

and several small tributary streams. The reservoir has a maximum capacity of about 

200,000 acre-feet covering about 11,200 surfaces acres. At full pool, the average depth is 

about 20 feet with a maximum of 70 feet in the original Deschutes River channel. The 

shoreline has a length of about 50.5 miles. It is over 6.5-miles-long and 4.5-miles-wide, not 

including the Deschutes River or Davis Creek arms of the reservoir. The reservoir has no 

minimum pool restrictions. The outlet structure is unscreened and allows fish to escape 

when water levels are drawn down. The outlet’s depth is approximately 70 feet which rules 

out the use of conventional fish screening. Fies et al. (1996a) stated that “It does not appear 

to be technically feasible to screen such an outlet at this time.” 

As stated above for Crane Prairie Reservoir, Wickiup Reservoir storage content has also 

varied considerably from year to year and season to season depending on the water year and 

on withdrawals for irrigation (Figure 3-7). When the reservoir level drops below 40,000 

acre-feet of storage (20 percent full), fish become concentrated in the Deschutes River 

channel of the reservoir and the loss of fish through the outlet increases (Fies et al. 1996a). 

The average end-of-October carryover has been between 50,000 and 60,000 acre-feet, 25 to 

35 percent full. 

Fish prey are also the most sought after prey for nesting eagles at Wickiup Reservoir. The 

nine bald eagle nesting pairs associated with Wickiup Reservoir compete among 

themselves for the available fish prey and with other piscivorous birds (especially ospreys) 

and anglers. 

Fies et al. (1996a) reported that bull trout, redband trout, and mountain whitefish were the 

indigenous fish species present in the Deschutes River before the construction of Wickiup 

Reservoir in 1949. Bull trout are no longer found in this upper reach of the river. In 

addition to the indigenous mountain whitefish and a small population of redband trout, the 

reservoir and its tributaries currently contain introduced brown trout, kokanee, coho 

5-16 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

salmon, brook trout, largemouth bass, and tui chub. Brown trout and coho salmon (as 

available) are still stocked in the reservoir on an annual basis. The other fish species are 

self-sustaining from previous stocking or illegal introductions. 

Wickiup Reservoir and its tributaries are heavily used by anglers throughout the season 

(Fies et al. 1996a). Both the reservoir and its tributaries have been managed as “basic 

yield” fisheries for indigenous whitefish, introduced hatchery and naturally-producing 

populations of brown, rainbow, and brook trout; kokanee; and coho salmon. The reservoir 

has a reputation for producing large brown trout; however, the primary angling is for 

kokanee and coho. 

Fies et al. (1996a) stated that, for Wickiup Reservoir, “the fish production potential is 

limited by reservoir pool level.” More recent evidence suggests that illegally introduced 

populations of bass and tui chubs may also be limiting trout production. There is no 

designated minimum pool level for fish life. Reservoir storage records (Reclamation 

2003a) show that the reservoir typically stays above 25,000 acre-feet. A recent recorded 

minimum of 15,600 acre-feet occurred in 1994. Average end-of-September carryover is 

61,000 acre-feet. 

As previously discussed above, “When the reservoir drops below 40,000 acre-feet of 

storage, the loss of fish through the unscreened outlet increases...These are primarily 

kokanee and coho, fish with strong migrational tendencies (Fies et al. 1996a).” Thousands 

of kokanee and coho salmon and lesser numbers of brown trout can be lost from the 

reservoir annually. 

“During a period of high water years, natural production of kokanee results in too many fish 

for the available food supply and the size of the fish declines rapidly. Conversely, in the 

low water cycles, fish losses through the outlet increase and remaining fish have an 

abundant food supply resulting in larger fish (Fies et al. 1996a).” 

As at Crane Prairie Reservoir, Wickiup Reservoir also experiences an annual loss of tree 

stumps resulting in lost aquatic food production and fish cover. This problem is especially 

severe in low water years. Projects to replace structural habitat (i.e., rocks, whole trees, 

root wads) have been undertaken, but are relatively small in scope compared to the amount 

of habitat lost. With continued loss of stump habitat, the overall fish production capability 

of the reservoir may decline in the future (Fies et al. 1996a). 

Browns Creek, Davis Creek, Sheep Springs, and the Deschutes River (between Crane 

Prairie Dam and Wickiup Reservoir) provide spawning habitat for brown and rainbow 

trout, kokanee, whitefish, and brook trout. Coho salmon, although present at Wickiup 

Reservoir, have never been observed spawning in the tributaries--possibly because water 

temperatures are too cold for coho production (Fies et al. 1996a). Stream habitat in the 

Deschutes River varies in length due to fluctuations in Wickiup Reservoir pool, but 

averages about 2.5 miles. It may be up to 6 miles in late summer when the Wickiup 

September 2003 – Final 5-17 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reservoir pool level is down. While this reach of the Deschutes River is characterized by 

generally good water quality (Fies et al. 1996a), it can be adversely affected in mid-summer 

because of warm water releases, accompanied by extensive amounts of algae, from Crane 

Prairie Reservoir. Flow fluctuations can also significantly alter the amount of useable 

spawning gravel and trout rearing cover in this reach of river. 

Deschutes River (Downstream of Wickiup Reservoir) 

The Deschutes River and tributaries below Wickiup Reservoir provide foraging habitat for 

three bald eagle pairs which nest along the river and possibly other pairs with overlapping 

territories (i.e., the Wickiup Dam nesting territory). Flows in this reach of river are 

characterized by large, demand-based seasonal fluctuations as a result of reservoir 

operations and irrigation diversions (Figure 3-8). During irrigation season, when releases 

from upstream reservoirs increase to meet downstream irrigation demands, Deschutes River 

flows greatly exceed historic “natural” flows. During the fall and winter, flows are reduced 

below historic “natural” flows as the reservoirs are refilled (see Chapter 3). 

During the nonirrigation season, a minimum of 20 cfs is normally maintained at the gaging 

station about 1,000 feet downstream from the dam (Reclamation 2003a). This minimum 

was set by the Oregon State Engineer as a result of a hearing held in September 1954 on the 

amended application to increase the storage in Wickiup Reservoir. Flows higher than 20 

cfs can usually be supplied in a series of wet years without risk to refill, as was the case 

from 1997 to 2001. 

This combination of wide seasonal fluctuations, sustained high summer flows, sustained 

low winter flows, and the rapid transition from each to accommodate seasonal irrigation 

needs is the current primary source of aquatic and riparian habitat degradation (i.e., 

bankline erosion, sediment load, high turbidity levels, loss of spawning habitat, loss of 

riparian vegetation) and limitations on overall productivity of fish prey in the Deschutes 

River from Wickiup Dam to Bend. 

During the eagle nesting season, flows in this reach of river are generally high from spring 

runoff and from irrigation releases. The prey base in this reach of the Deschutes River 

consists, primarily, of the same fish species which exist in Wickiup Reservoir. Resident 

fish and fish flushed through the dam (as described earlier) provide needed forage for the 

nesting eagles which forage along the river. Although, higher than natural flows may 

restrict foraging success. Low water in the winter period (dry and average years) does not 

directly influence foraging of nesting eagles, but it does limit habitat available to resident 

fish, resulting in reduced fish populations. 

5-18 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.2.3.2 Crooked River Subbasin 

Prineville Reservoir 

The nesting pair of bald eagles at Prineville Reservoir rely primarily on the abundant prey 

base of resident fish populations in the reservoir. Common species of prey may include 

rainbow trout, smallmouth and largemouth bass, brown bullhead, largescale and bridgelip 

suckers, and black crappie. Waterfowl and other birds and small mammals are incidental to 

fish prey. 

The availability of prey varies according to habitat conditions, production success, and 

annual stocking rates. Of the foregoing, habitat conditions in Prineville Reservoir are 

closely associated with reservoir operations. Dry year cycles, in particular, reduce the 

quality and quantity of available aquatic habitat, which, in turn, may adversely affect fish 

production and/or longevity. However, dry cycle effects at Prineville Reservoir are rare. 

Foraging habitat for nesting bald eagles at Prineville Reservoir consists primarily of the 

open water area of the reservoir surface and the Crooked River above and below the 

reservoir. The reservoir has an active capacity of about 148,640 acre-feet covering about 

3,070 surfaces acres. Maximum depth is about 230 feet, with an average annual drawdown 

of 25 to 30 feet. The shoreline has a length of about 43 miles. The reservoir is over 12 

miles in total length but varies from less than 1⁄4-mile-wide to about 3⁄4-mile-wide. The 

reservoir has no minimum pool restrictions, but the uncontracted space (83,000 acre-feet) 

serves to maintain a minimum pool in most years. The recent recorded minimum pool was 

22,450 acre-feet in 1993 (Reclamation 2003a). The reservoir storage content is fairly 

predictable for most years (Figure 3-23). The average end-of-October carryover storage is 

about 83,000 acre-feet (about 56 percent of full). 

Prior to inundation in the winter of 1960-61, the Crooked River at the site of Prineville 

Reservoir supported a very low abundance of native redband trout and MCR steelhead, 

brown bullhead, and assorted nongame species. The riverine ecosystem was extremely 

degraded by land and water management practices at the time (Stuart et al. 1996). 

Stuart et al. (1996) reported that “Prineville Reservoir is probably moderately nutrient rich, 

but unproductive due to the high turbidity which limits sunlight penetration.” The reservoir 

is impacted by high quantities of suspended sediments resulting from erosion occurring on 

the mainstem Crooked River and tributaries above the reservoir as well as shoreline erosion 

of the reservoir caused by the wave action from wind and boats. 

Nongame species presently dominate the fish population in Prineville Reservoir. Suckers 

and chiselmouth are the most abundant. Stuart et al. (1996) reported that hatchery rainbow 

trout are stocked in the reservoir in early to mid-May and are the primary game fish in the 

reservoir. 

September 2003 – Final 5-19 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Largemouth and smallmouth bass are sustained by natural reproduction. Largemouth are 

generally found in the upper half of the reservoir while smallmouth bass are common 

throughout the reservoir. The generally poor condition of bass species in the reservoir 

indicate an insufficient prey base (Stuart et al. 1996). Production may also be limited by 

reservoir drawdowns in the early spring. ODFW and Reclamation have cooperated on 

projects to improve bass habitat in the reservoir, including the placement of juniper trees for 

fish cover (Reclamation 2003a). 

Crooked River Below Bowman Dam 

Cold water releases (Figure 3-24) from Prineville Reservoir have created a tailrace fishery 

through the Chimney Rock section (about 12 miles) of the lower Crooked River. This 

reach of river supports a mix of native redband trout, hatchery rainbow trout, and mountain 

whitefish. Hatchery fish stocked in Prineville Reservoir sometimes pass through the dam to 

the Crooked River below. High entrainment rates appear to correspond with severe 

drawdown of the reservoir or when the reservoir is high enough that water flows over the 

spillway (Stuart et al. 1996). Small amounts of smallmouth and largemoth bass, brown 

bullhead, and nongame fish also occur in the river below the dam. 

Informal minimum releases up to 75 cfs (usually 30-35 cfs during extreme drought 

conditions) from the uncontracted storage space have helped sustain the downstream 

fishery during the nonirrigation season. 

Ochoco Reservoir 

Ochoco Reservoir is a privately-owned facility that is operated in coordination with 

Reclamation’s Bowman Dam operations. 

Wintering bald eagles at Ochoco Reservoir utilize the prey base of resident fish populations 

in the reservoir to supplement their diet of big game and livestock carrion. Common 

species of fish prey may include rainbow trout, brown bullhead, and bridgelip suckers. 

Waterfowl, other birds, and small mammals are incidental to fish prey and upland carrion in 

the eagles winter diet. 

The availability of prey varies according to habitat conditions, production success, and 

annual stocking rates. Of the foregoing, aquatic habitat conditions in Ochoco Reservoir are 

closely associated with reservoir operations. Dry year cycles, in particular, severely reduce 

the quality and quantity of available overwintering aquatic habitat, which, in turn, may 

adversely affect fish numbers during the winter period. 

Foraging habitat for wintering bald eagles at Ochoco Reservoir consists primarily of the 

open water area of the reservoir surface and Ochoco Creek above the reservoir. The 

reservoir has a capacity of about 44,266 acre-feet covering about 1,060 surfaces acres. 

Maximum depth is about 100 feet with an average annual drawdown of 25 to 50 feet. The 

5-20 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

reservoir is about 3.5 miles in total length with a maximum width of 0.5 miles. The 

reservoir has no minimum pool restrictions; the entire useable pool is used to irrigate OID 

lands. 

The reservoir storage content is fairly predictable for most years (Figure 5-4). The average 

end-of-October carryover storage has been about 14,750 acre-feet or about 33 percent full 

(Reclamation 2003a). 

Figure 5-4. Ochoco Reservoir – Historic End-of-Month Elevations 

Ochoco Reservoir habitat is characterized by a lack of shoreline vegetation, an expansive 

mud flat substrate in the upper end, and a boulder and cobble-strewn substrate in the lower 

end. Additional habitat limitations for fish include only moderate concentrations of 

nutrients in the water, very low abundance of aquatic vegetation, a lack of structural 

complexity, and water that is too cold for optimal warmwater fish production and perhaps 

too warm for optimal trout production (Stuart et al. 1996). 

Ochoco Reservoir currently supports populations of rainbow trout, brown bullhead, and 

bridgelip suckers. Ochoco Creek upstream of the reservoir supports redband trout, 

bridgelip sucker, sculpins, and dace. Hatchery rainbow trout grow well in the reservoir and 

have supported the bulk of angler effort since 1958 (Stuart et al. 1996). The reservoir is 

managed for intensive use and basic yield, with the fishery sustained by a hatchery 

fingerling rainbow trout program. Since 1980, approximately 100,000 rainbow trout have 

September 2003 – Final 5-21 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

been stocked in the reservoir, annually; although these numbers have been adjusted 

downwards in years with anticipated low water conditions. 

Ochoco Dam has an unscreened outlet that allows hatchery fish to be entrained into the 

stilling basin and creek below. When water is shut off following the irrigation season, these 

fish die unless a salvage is conducted. Some hatchery rainbow pass downstream, rear, and 

may reproduce in Ochoco Creek. Hatchery fish may also move upstream from the 

reservoir, rear, and reproduce in Ochoco and Mill Creeks (Stuart et al. 1996). 

5.2.3.3 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin 

The nesting pair of bald eagles at Clear Lake rely primarily on the fish prey base in Clear 

Lake and in adjacent streams and lakes. Common species of prey are rainbow trout and 

kokanee. Waterfowl and other birds and small mammals would be incidental to fish prey. 

The availability of prey varies according to habitat conditions, production success, and 

annual stocking rates. Of the foregoing, habitat conditions in Clear Lake are closely 

associated with reservoir operations. Dry year cycles, in particular, reduce the quality and 

quantity of available aquatic habitat, which, in turn, may adversely affect fish production 

and/or longevity. 

Foraging habitat at Clear Lake consists of the open water area of the reservoir surface. The 

reservoir has an active capacity of about 11,900 acre-feet covering about 557 surfaces acres. 

The water depth at the dam is about 40 feet at full pool. The shoreline has a length of 5 to 6 

miles. It is about 2 miles in total length but varies from less than 1⁄4-mile wide to about 1­

mile across its two arms. The reservoir has no minimum pool restrictions, but when the 

reservoir is drawn down to dead pool, the original natural lake remains (storage content 

unknown). 

The historic record of reservoir storage at Clear Lake is not complete; therefore, only a 

partial hydrograph can be constructed (Figure 3-31). It is estimated that the average end-ofOctober carryover storage is about 2,540 acre-feet over and above the natural lake level 

(Reclamation 2003a). The reservoir is essentially emptied on most drought years, but still 

leaving the natural lake. 

Bald eagles have been commonly seen in the area for years foraging in the Clear Lake, Frog 

Lake, and Timothy Lake areas (Morehead 1999). A kokanee run above Timothy Lake 

provides seasonal prey for eagles. Fish as a prey base at Clear Lake itself may be limited, 

because of annual reservoir drawdowns. Even so, Clear Lake is regularly stocked with 

legal size rainbow trout and regular stocking is expected to continue into the foreseeable 

future. Clear Creek below the dam typically has insufficient year-round flows to support a 

fishery. 

5-22 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Wintering Bald Eagles 

The lower Deschutes subbasin value to bald eagles is primarily as wintering habitat. As 

described for the Crooked River and middle Deschutes River subbasins, bald eagle numbers 

increase dramatically during the fall, winter, and spring during migrations and wintering 

periods. Numerous communal roosts are utilized along the river corridor. Prey species 

include fish which are abundant in the lower river and tributaries, as well as waterfowl, 

small mammals, and big game and livestock carrion. 

Clear Lake freezes over in the winter, so there is no foraging habitat at the lake for eagles or 

ospreys during that season (Reclamation 1999). 

5.3 BULL TROUT 

5.3.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline 

Bull trout were formerly viewed as a “trash fish” by anglers because they consume juvenile 

salmon and other game fish and were considered undesirable predators. Many fish and 

wildlife agencies mounted active campaigns to eliminate bull trout. Even after active 

efforts to eliminate bull trout ceased, populations continued to decline due to impacts from 

other human activities. The causes of this decline are many and varied and have worked in 

concert to cumulatively impact this and other native salmonid species. Impacts on bull 

trout generally occur from three areas of resource management: 1) land management 

practices, 2) water management practices, and 3) fisheries management practices. Current 

recognized threats to bull trout are discussed in the following sections. 

5.3.1.1 Habitat Degradation 

Loss of riparian vegetation through human activity leads to increased water temperature and 

siltation. Instream cover is lost due to a reduction in woody debris recruitment and unstable 

banks that do not allow the formation of undercut banks. Most bull trout spawning 

strongholds are associated with unmanaged watersheds with near pristine streams. 

5.3.1.2 Passage Barriers and Stream Diversions 

Dams, irrigation diversions, and other alterations of waterways have interrupted the 

migration of bull trout. Numerous dams without adequate fish passage have caused some 

populations with migratory life histories to switch to resident life histories. Where once the 

migratory bull trout linked resident bull trout to much of the species’ gene pool, today, the 

resident populations are isolated, vulnerable to habitat degradation and may suffer a loss of 

genetic diversity. If a barrier is high in a drainage, the isolated population may be too small 

to sustain itself. 

September 2003 – Final 5-23 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

On bull trout streams where there are irrigation diversions, at least four potential problems 

may affect bull trout production. Irrigation diversions reduce instream flows; the water 

returned to streams tends to be warmer than the water diverted; sediment is added to 

streams; and unscreened diversions entrain migrating juvenile bull trout to conveyance 

systems and fields where they die. 

Construction of water storage structures appears to have been a significant factor in the 

reduction of bull trout range and distribution. Construction and operation of these facilities 

have modified streamflows, changed stream temperature regimen, blocked migration 

routes, entrained bull trout, and affected bull trout forage bases. 

Reservoirs experience substantial drawdowns during drought years. Reduced reservoir 

volume directly impacts the amount of aquatic environment for all organisms in the food 

web. Production of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and aquatic insects are all reduced when 

drawdowns are extreme. Reduction in the food base may reduce the prey available for 

predator species like bull trout; although, in some cases, forage fish populations may be 

more concentrated and more available as prey. When reservoir volume is greatly reduced, 

bull trout and other fish species may be forced into riverine habitats. 

Upper Deschutes River 

Construction of Crane Prairie Dam in 1922 and Wickiup Dam in 1949 blocked fish 

passage, reduced instream flows and caused subsequent increases in water temperature, 

altered streamflow regimes, and inundated spawning and juvenile rearing areas in the upper 

Deschutes River subbasin (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

Although a loss of connectivity, habitat, and forage base due to dam construction may have 

been detrimental to bull trout populations, this cannot be the sole explanation for their 

extirpation, for they persisted in the upper Deschutes River subbasin for 16 years after the 

construction of Crane Prairie Dam. 

Lower Deschutes River 

The construction of the Pelton-Round Butte Project created a barrier to the upstream 

movement of bull trout in the mainstem Deschutes River and is also an obstacle to 

downstream movement. This project has had some effects to flows in the lower Deschutes 

River, however, it is not known whether or not these effects alter bull trout use of the 

mainstem Deschutes River (Newton and Pribyl 1994). 

5.3.1.3 Competition with Exotic Species 

Brook trout were introduced to Oregon and Idaho in the early 1900s (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

Brook trout not only compete directly with juvenile bull trout for food, but are genetically 

close enough to the bull trout to permit hybridization. The hybrids are sterile and represent 

5-24 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

a dead end for bull trout genes. The danger is especially acute when there are few bull trout 

and the hybrids cannot contribute to the bull trout population. 

Other introduced species that provide forage and have different habitat preferences, such as 

kokanee, may actually benefit bull trout. However, when brown trout, bass, and lake trout 

are present in the same waters as bull trout, they may depress or replace bull trout 

populations through competition for prey and may also prey upon juvenile bull trout. 

5.3.1.4 Reduced Populations from Overfishing or Eradication Efforts 

Some populations of bull trout were eliminated and others have not recovered from 

overfishing and deliberate efforts to eradicate them. The populations remaining may suffer 

from a loss of genetic diversity and may not be able to sustain themselves. 

Angling and harvest of bull trout influences the current status of this species, which may be 

vulnerable to overharvest. Although the direct, legal harvest of bull trout has been 

eliminated or restricted in most states, incidental takes of this species in recreational trout 

fisheries and by poachers, especially in streams supporting large migratory fish, may further 

impact bull trout abundance. During a regulated season, the ODFW allows anglers to 

harvest one bull trout per day with a 24-inch minimum length from Lake Billy Chinook. 

5.3.1.5 Catastrophic Events 

Catastrophic fire events can drastically alter water quality, water temperature, woody 

debris, bank vegetation, and streamflow characteristics. Wildfire has been documented as 

impacting bull trout populations (Burton 1997). Salvage timber sales have a high potential 

to impact isolated bull trout populations. Drought conditions result in reduced summer 

streamflows (and reduced reservoir elevations) and increased water temperature and will 

predictably reduce spawning success and survival of bull trout (Knowles and Gumtow 

1996). Climate change as a result of global warming could reduce bull trout spawning 

success (Knowles and Gumtow 1996). 

Environmental stochasticity or the effect of a catastrophic event (such as deep reservoir 

drawdowns for flood control or during drought conditions) influence the probability of bull 

trout extinction when population size is small (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

5.3.1.6 Recovery Efforts 

The 1997 “Status of Oregon's Bull Trout” (Buchanan et al. 1997) reports that 81 percent of 

Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a “moderate risk of extinction,” 

“high risk of extinction,” or “probably extinct.” This report discusses life history, habitat 

needs, potential limiting factors, and risks for bull trout populations on a basin-by-basin 

basis. The report concludes with a section on research and management needs, followed by 

recommendations. 

September 2003 – Final 5-25 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

In the Deschutes River basin, efforts were initiated to protect and enhance bull trout in the 

Metolius subbasin in 1983. These efforts were initiated by the Metolius Bull Trout 

Working Group comprised of representatives from ODFW, USFS, CTWSRO, and PGE. 

Since then the group has been expanded to include the entire Deschutes River basin and 

additional representatives from USFWS, BLM, Reclamation, Central Oregon Flyfishers, 

Trout Unlimited, Oregon Department of Forestry, and Oregon State Parks and Recreation 

Department. Another working group has been formed to work on bull trout in the Odell 

Lake basin. This group includes representatives from the USFS, ODFW, and resort owners 

around the lake. Both working groups have been drafting conservation strategies for bull 

trout in their respective basins (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

In November 2002, the draft rule for bull trout critical habitat in the Columbia and Klamath 

River basins was published in the Federal Register by the USFWS. This proposal includes 

bull trout critical habitat for the Deschutes River basin. A final rule was expected in 

October 2003. However, USFWS has postponed further work to develop a final rule until 

fiscal year 2004 because of lack of funding. 

Critical habitat refers to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a 

threatened and endangered species. Primary constituent elements are physical and 

biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 

special management considerations or protection. Currently, there are nine primary 

constituent elements considered for bull trout that describe physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the species. Physical features include temperature, flow 

regime, water chemistry and habitat constituents such as stream channel type, substrate 

composition, and migratory corridor considerations. Biological features include 

consideration of competitive nonnative species interaction and food base and forage 

requirements. An important consideration for the proposed action is the effect, if any, to 

the primary constituent elements described above. Since present operations of Reclamation 

facilities in the Deschutes and Crooked River subbasins reflect ongoing actions that have 

occurred in the recent past, there will be no effect to the hydrograph and potential physical 

or biological features associated with critical habitat proposed for bull trout. 

The USFWS is expecting completion of final bull trout recovery plans in November 2004. 

Recovery plans are a much larger blueprint for the recovery and eventual delisting of a 

species, as it provides recommendations concerning habitat and various other factors that 

need to be addressed to achieve recovery. 

5.3.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area 

5.3.2.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin C Headwaters to Bend 

As described earlier in this chapter, bull trout are no longer found in Reclamation project 

reservoirs (i.e., Crane Prairie, Wickiup) and the upper Deschutes River system, and are 

5-26 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

thought to be “probably extinct” (Buchanan et al. 1997). Since few studies by management 

agencies focused on bull trout, basic information is lacking, such as accurate estimates of 

their historical population sizes and distribution within the upper Deschutes River subbasin. 

The only population remaining in the upper basin is that associated with Odell Lake, which 

is not a project facility and is not affected by operation of Reclamation projects. The Odell 

Lake population is considered to be at “high risk” of extinction. The presence of a public 

campground on Trapper Creek in the only identified bull trout spawning area in the Odell 

subbasin may put spawning bull trout at risk from illegal harvest. Harvest management of 

bull trout is the main conservation management tool used at this time (Marx 2000). 

5.3.2.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin C Bend to Lake Billy Chinook 

The middle Deschutes River is delineated as the area downstream from the City of Bend at 

RM 165 to Lake Billy Chinook (RM 120). Below the city of Bend, the Deschutes River 

changes from forested to desert canyon habitats. Following irrigation development, nearly 

the entire flow at the North Canal Dam at Bend was diverted during the irrigation season. 

Flows recorded immediately downstream from Bend during the irrigation season are 

typically less than 50 cfs. 

Streamflows 

The Deschutes River from Bend to Lake Billy Chinook does not have an established 

minimum flow. Reductions in streamflow and changes in flow patterns due to water 

diversions in Bend and upstream have drastically altered flow in the middle Deschutes 

River, as well as the aquatic environment. 

Prior to reaching Lake Billy Chinook, substantial groundwater discharge occurs along the 

lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek and the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge (RM 135) 

and Lake Billy Chinook. These discharges provide substantial cooling to the Deschutes 

River. A 2001 ODEQ thermal infrared study showed a surface water temperature decrease 

of approximately 16°F between RM 132 and RM 120. 

This discharge of water and subsequent good water quality in this reach of the Deschutes 

River is likely the reason that bull trout are present from Lake Billy Chinook to Big Falls 

(RM 132). These groundwater discharge gains occur even during dry periods and the driest 

months of the year. In 1994 (Caldwell 1998), the streamflow increased by more than 430 

cfs from RM 138 to RM 120. 

Bull Trout 

As described earlier in this chapter, the bull trout populations in the middle Deschutes 

subbasins occur in the Metolius River subbasin, Lake Billy Chinook Reservoir, the 

Deschutes River upstream from Lake Billy Chinook to Big Falls, lower Squaw Creek, and 

the lower part of Crooked River up to the Opal Springs Dam. The Metolius River and its 

September 2003 – Final 5-27 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

tributaries are the primary spawning and rearing streams, while Lake Billy Chinook and its 

respective riverine arms (Deschutes, Metolius, and Crooked Rivers) provide foraging habitat 

for overwintering adults and growing subadults and has produced a trophy-sized bull trout 

fishery. Life histories of these fish are summarized as follows from Buchanan et al. (1997). 

Most bull trout in the Metolius River and tributaries age 5 and older spawn between 15 

August and early October, with some individual spawners found between July through late 

October. It appears that the extremely cold (39E to 46EF) Metolius River tributaries 

provide the critical spawning and juvenile rearing habitats that support the Metolius River 

bull trout population. 

Juvenile bull trout typically rear in their natal streams for 2 to 3 years before migrating 

downstream to Lake Billy Chinook. Although migrating juveniles were observed in all 

months, most migration peaked in May and June. Many of these fish appeared to migrate 

directly to Lake Billy Chinook when about 8 inches (200 mm) long. Subadult bull trout 

tagged in the lake at the head of the Metolius arm moved into all available waters. After 2 

to 3 years in the reservoir (age 5-6), they migrated back up the Metolius River during April 

through July. Maturing adult bull trout were captured at the head of the Metolius arm of 

Lake Billy Chinook beginning in April and continuing through August. 

Most maturing bull trout remained in the lower Metolius River until mid-July when they 

initiated their upstream migration. After migration commenced, most fish quickly moved 

up the Metolius River and resided near the mouth of the intended spawning tributary. Adult 

bull trout entered tributary streams beginning in late July and continuing through the last 

week of September. Migration into the spawning tributary, spawning, and migration back 

to the Metolius River usually took place within 2 weeks. Most post-spawned bull trout 

moved back down to Lake Billy Chinook within 4 weeks after spawning, demonstrating an 

adfluvial life history pattern. However, some bull trout appeared to demonstrate a fluvial 

life history pattern and remained in the upper Metolius River. 

Number of Fish – The number of bull trout redds and number of spawning adults has 

generally been increasing since the late 1980s. Trends in spawning population size have 

increased since 1986 from 27 redds to about 760 redds in 2001 (PGE 2002). Estimated 

population numbers for adult fish system-wide increased from 818 in 1993 to 1,895 in 1994 

(Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout abundance has increased dramatically in recent years 

because of restrictive angling regulations, education, and a large forage base of kokanee in 

Lake Billy Chinook. The healthy Metolius/Lake Billy Chinook bull trout population 

(Ratliff and Howell 1992) has allowed a limited harvest of trophy fish to continue. 

The number of bull trout counted in the Metolius River basin through 2001 suggests that 

this population is fit and robust enough to prevent excessive inbreeding. Growth rates in 

Lake Billy Chinook are some of the highest reported in the literature (Riehle et al. 1997). 

5-28 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Habitat Conditions/Water Quality – Because of low streamflows, land management 

activities, and multiple uncontrolled variables such as air temperatures from Bend to about 

30 river miles downstream, water quality does not meet State standards. Water quality 

problems include high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high pH, high nutrient 

loading, high fecal coliform, high toxins (pesticides, fertilizers), moderate turbidity and 

high sedimentation. High volumes (about 500 cfs) of cold spring water substantially 

improve the water quality in the remaining 12 miles to Lake Billy Chinook. The influence 

of these springs provides a relatively cool and stable year-round water temperature for bull 

trout that inhabit this reach of the river. 

5.3.2.3 Crooked River Subbasin 

While there is no historical documentation of bull trout spawning in the Crooked River 

subbasin, Metolius basin bull trout used the lower Crooked River for juvenile rearing and 

adult holding areas. 

The apparent absence of bull trout from the remainder of this basin is consistent with the 

habitat requirements of the species, which is generally found in watersheds that receive 

substantial year-round flow from cold water springs. 

Currently, bull trout in the lower Crooked River are confined to Lake Billy Chinook and in 

the river upstream to the Opal Springs Dam and hydroelectric facility, an impassible barrier 

since 1982. There are no records of their abundance in the lower Crooked River. Similar 

to the Deschutes River upstream from Lake Billy Chinook, the lower Crooked River 

experiences significant groundwater inflow between RM 6 to RM 14. Caldwell (1994) 

documented gains of up to 1,006 cfs in this reach. During summer and fall periods, lower 

Crooked River flows upstream from the groundwater discharge sites is typically very low 

with warm water temperatures. Near the mouth of the Crooked River, contributions from 

Opal Springs provide good water temperatures and refugia for bull trout during extreme 

summer and winter temperatures. 

September 2003 – Final 5-29 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.3.2.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin 

The lower Deschutes River is delineated as the area downstream from Pelton Reregulating 

Dam at RM 100.1 to the mouth. 

Streamflows 

The lower Deschutes River is a remarkably uniform and stable river (Fassnacht et al. 2002, 

and Figures 3-17 and 3-19). Russell (1905, cited in O’Connor et al. 1999) noted that the 

Deschutes River exhibited “certain peculiarities not commonly met with.” Henshaw et al. 

(1914 cited in O’Connor et al. 1999) recognized the uniform and stable flows in the 

Deschutes River and O’Connor et al. (1999) attributed the steady flow of the Deschutes 

River to “the poorly integrated drainage system in the southern and western portions of the 

Deschutes Basin, and the substantial groundwater storage in the young volcanic fields along 

the flanks of the Cascade Range.” Daily average streamflows in cfs in the lower Deschutes 

River on a monthly basis for the period 1990 to 2001 at USGS streamflow gaging stations 

at Madras and Moody, located at RM 100.1 and 1.4, respectively, are shown in Table 5-3. 

The period 1990 to 2000 was selected to represent current conditions, and includes some 

wet, dry, and “normal” water years. This more recent time period does not include some 

extremely dry years that occurred in the 1930s, but does reflect current baseline 

environmental conditions and operations for this consultation. The State of Oregon 

instream flow recommendations based on Aney et al. (1961) are met or exceeded year 

round in this reach where bull trout occur, when compared to the average flow from 1990­

2001. 

Table 5-3. Daily Mean Flows (cfs) for USGS Streamflow Gages in the 

Lower Deschutes River near Madras and Moody, OR 

Madras, OR Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Avg 1990-2001 5,185 5,523 5,378 5,067 4,456 4,296 3,968 3,917 3,955 4290 4,699 5,010 

Recommended 

Annual Flows 

(Aney et al. 1967) 

4,500 4,500 4,500 

4,000 

4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

3,500 

3,500 3,500 

3,800 

3,800 3,800 4,500 

Percent 

Exceedance 

90% 4,055 3,952 3,906 3,739 3,637 3,643 3,424 3,586 3,566 3,708 4,053 4,023 

50% 4,591 4,836 4,775 4,149 4,081 3,923 3,777 3,832 3,773 3,977 4,305 4,525 

10% 9,600 8,974 7,732 7,643 5,807 5,899 4,863 4,695 4,911 5,410 5,714 7,253 

Moody, OR 

Avg 1990-2001 6,747 7,807 7,064 6,613 5,778 5,170 4,517 4,367 4,373 4,762 5,476 6,236 

Percent 

Exceedance 

90% 4,873 4,595 4,418 4,560 4,166 3,988 3,606 3,748 3,809 4,167 4,652 4,446 

50% 5,425 5,503 6,717 5,494 5,604 4,731 4,309 4,302 4,110 4,410 5,043 5,389 

10% 14,981 16,981 9,512 9,880 7,717 7,297 5,715 5,351 5,285 5,860 6,716 11,312 

5-30 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Bull Trout 

Dams and lack of fish passage greatly restricted and eliminated migrations of upriver 

groups of bull trout into the lower Deschutes River and tributaries. The majority of bull 

trout in the lower Deschutes River subbasin exhibit a fluvial life history pattern and are 

found from Sherars Falls upstream to the Pelton Reregulating Dam (Brun and Dodson 

2001). Adult bull trout spawn near the headwaters of the Warm Springs River and Shitike 

Creek. Brun and Dodson (2001) found that adult bull trout leave the Deschutes River and 

enter the spawning tributaries from early May through mid-June. Juvenile bull trout rear 

from 2 to 3 years in these streams before migrating to the Deschutes River. The majority of 

juveniles were documented leaving Shitike Creek beginning early March and continuing 

through mid-June (Brun and Dodson 2001). 

Results from a 1999-2000 telemetry study (Brun and Dodson 2001) confirm that Shitike 

Creek is a major spawning tributary for bull trout residing in the lower Deschutes River. 

Prior to spawning migration, lower Deschutes River bull trout move little during the winter 

through early spring. During May and June, they make a quick migration to Shitike Creek 

where they hold and later spawn (Brun and Dodson 2001). Following spawning in 

September, they rapidly emigrated back to the Deschutes River. This migration timing 

appears similar to the adjacent Lake Billy Chinook-Metolius populations (Thiesfield et al. 

1996). 

The estimated number of spawning bull trout for the Warm Springs River has remained 

about the same with 232 reported in 1998 and 260 in 2002 (Brun 2003). In Shitike Creek, 

269 bull trout were estimated to have spawned in 1998 and 469 bull trout in 2002 (Brun 

2003). Bull trout abundance has increased in recent years because of restrictive angling 

regulations and education. 

Bull trout monitoring studies conducted on the Warm Springs River found that 80 adult bull 

trout were documented passing the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery weir in 2001, 

which was the second highest recorded since 1995 (Brun and Dodson 2001). 

September 2003 – Final 5-31 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.4 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD 

5.4.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline 

Some factors contributing to the decline of MCR steelhead populations include hydropower 

development, which affect both juvenile and adult passage; water diversion/withdrawal; 

agricultural land use activities, such as livestock grazing; predation; harvest; and hatchery 

effects, including interactions between hatchery and wild steelhead (NMFS 1996). Some 

habitat constraints to production of wild steelhead in the Deschutes River basin include 

sedimentation below the White River, streambank degradation, and low flows and high 

water temperatures in tributaries (NPPC 1990). 

Hydropower development has been a major factor contributing to decline of MCR steelhead 

(NMFS 1996). Construction of dams has blocked access to miles of previously productive 

habitat. Modification of natural flow regimes by dams has resulted in increased water 

temperatures, changes in fish community structure, and increased travel time of migrating 

adults and juveniles. The Corps, Portland District, has funded extensive juvenile and adult 

salmonid studies for many years at mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams, including 

The Dalles and Bonneville Dams. The Deschutes River population of the MCR steelhead 

ESU pass through these two dams on their downstream and upstream migration. Other 

populations in this ESU further upstream pass through additional dams. Juvenile fish from 

upstream from McNary Dam may be collected and transported during their outmigration. 

The Dalles Dam has less effective juvenile fish passage facilities compared to other 

Columbia River projects and mortality of inriver outmigrants passing the project is greater 

than at other Columbia River projects (Ploskey et al. 2001). The Dalles Dam does not have 

a mechanical screen juvenile bypass system (NMFS 2000b). Spillway passage generally 

has higher survival than turbine passage (Whitney et al. 1997, cited in Giorgi et al. 2002) 

and sluiceway passage (Ploskey et al. 2001). The Dalles Dam spillway is located on what 

was a shallow basalt bluff (NMFS 2000b). Spill survival at The Dalles Dam for juvenile 

salmonids was lower than that for other Columbia River projects, and in some cases 

actually decreased with increasing levels of spill. Spillway survival through The Dalles 

Dam ranged from 76 to 100 percent since 1997, depending on spill volume, season, and 

year (NMFS 2000b). BioSonics (1999 cited in NMFS 2000b) estimated juvenile spring 

passage at 40.7 and 25.8 percent for 30 and 74 percent spill, respectively, and juvenile 

summer passage at 35.2 and 26.2 percent for 30 and 64 percent spill, respectively. Juvenile 

passage rates in the spring were slightly higher in the morning during these spill tests. 

Studies done to date have been limited to yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon and 

coho salmon. Spill survival of outmigrating juvenile steelhead may be of the same 

magnitude. 

5-32 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Fish that pass through turbines experience higher mortality rates than those that pass 

hydropower projects via a mechanical bypass or in spill (NMFS 2000b). Iwamoto and 

Williams (1993 cited in NMFS 2000b) noted that turbine survival averaged approximately 

90 percent per dam. When fish pass through bypass systems, mortality is generally less; 

survival for steelhead passing Little Goose Dam on the lower Snake River in 1997 was 

estimated at 95.3 percent (Muir et al. 1998 cited in NMFS 2000b). Survival of juvenile 

salmonids was highest in spill, ranging from about 98 to 100 percent, dependent in part on 

spill level. 

Adult MCR steelhead probably experience a 5 to 10 percent mortality per project, rates 

similar to spring and summer Chinook salmon. However, during low flow cycles, 

mainstem mortality can be substantially higher. Some mortality may occur when adults fall 

back through the turbines. Since adult steelhead generally do not feed during their 

upstream migration, delays due to ineffective powerhouse facilities, powerhouse and 

spillway operations, and poor flow and water quality conditions may contribute to mortality 

rates by depleting limited energy reserves. Turbulent water conditions near dam bypasses, 

turbine outfalls, water conveyances, and spillways may disorient juvenile fish and make 

them more vulnerable to predation. 

Warm, slackwater reservoirs create ideal conditions for the growth and abundance of the 

native piscivorous northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) and introduced 

predator gamefish such as walleye (Sander vitreus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Although smallmouth bass are 

present in Lake Billy Chinook and the Columbia River, they are not present in the lower 

Deschutes River. They were only documented there for one season after a large flood in 

2000 caused by a rain-on-snow event. Numbers remained low and they were no longer 

found in the river after about September. Smallmouth bass probably do not survive well in 

the lower Deschutes River due to unfavorably cool water temperatures and the steep 

gradient (Pribyl 2002). 

Biologists also cite interactions between hatchery and wild steelhead as a major cause of 

decline (Reisenbichler 1996, Chilcote 1999). About 80 percent of downstream migrant 

steelhead passing Lower Granite Dam are hatchery steelhead. Juvenile steelhead released 

from hatcheries could potentially interact adversely with native wild juvenile steelhead in 

the migration corridor, the estuary, and the ocean (NMFS 1999). Although many of these 

hatchery produced smolts are transported, some migrate inriver. Many steelhead hatcheries 

include composite stocks that have been domesticated over a long period of time with an 

associated loss or reduction of fitness. 

September 2003 – Final 5-33 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.4.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions in Project Area 

5.4.2.1 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin 

The lower Deschutes River is delineated as the area downstream from Pelton Reregulating 

Dam, located at RM 100.1. 

Streamflows 

The lower Deschutes River is a remarkably uniform and stable river (Fassnacht et al. 2002). 

Russell (1905, cited in O’Connor et al. 1999) noted that the Deschutes River exhibited 

“certain peculiarities not commonly met with.” Henshaw et al. (1914, cited in O’Connor et 

al. 1999) recognized the uniform and stable flows in the Deschutes River and O’Connor et 

al. (1999) attributed the steady flow of the Deschutes River to “the poorly integrated 

drainage system in the southern and western portions of the Deschutes Basin, and the 

substantial groundwater storage in the young volcanic fields along the flanks of the Cascade 

Range.” Daily average streamflows in cfs in the lower Deschutes River on a monthly basis 

for the period 1990 to 2001 at USGS streamflow gaging stations at Madras and Moody, 

located at RMs 100.1 and 1.4, respectively, were shown in Table 5-3. The period 1990 to 

2001 was selected to represent current conditions, and includes some wet, dry, and 

“normal” water years. This more recent time period does not include some extremely dry 

years that occurred in the 1930s, but does encompass a range of flow conditions and reflects 

current baseline environmental conditions and operations for this consultation. Table 5-3 

illustrates the relatively uniform and stable flow regime in the lower Deschutes River. With 

inflows into the lower Deschutes River from several major and numerous minor tributaries, 

the measured flows at the USGS Moody gage are higher than at the Madras gage, as 

expected. Irrigation diversions from the lower Deschutes River are primarily from 

tributaries. 

Summer Steelhead 

Evaluating the status of wild Deschutes River summer steelhead is a complex task because 

four different groups of steelhead occur in this basin (Chilcote 1998, NMFS 2000b). They 

include hatchery fish produced within the basin at Round Butte Hatchery, hatchery strays 

from the Snake and upper Columbia River basins, wild strays also from these upriver 

locations, and wild fish produced within the Deschutes River basin. The Deschutes River 

also contains conspecific resident rainbow/redband trout (Behnke 1992). 

5-34 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Number of Fish 

The number of adult steelhead captured at the Sherars Falls trap has fluctuated substantially 

since 1977, with a substantial increase in 2001 (Table 5-4 and Figure 5-5) (ODFW 2002). 

In 2001, 3,904 hatchery and 957 wild steelhead were captured there compared to 1,635 

hatchery and 931 wild steelhead in 2000. The proportion of hatchery to wild steelhead in 

the Deschutes River has increased substantially since 1977, with over 80 percent of the fish 

being hatchery fish since 1991, except for 1999 and 2000 (Table 5-4). In 2001, 80.31 

percent of the 4,861 steelhead captured at the Sherars Falls trap were hatchery-origin, while 

19.69 percent were wild. In 1995, 90.56 percent of the 1,950 steelhead captured were 

hatchery-origin, which was the highest for the period of record. 

Table 5-4. Wild and Hatchery Steelhead Captured at the Sherars Falls Trap 

Year Wild Hatchery Total % wild % Hatchery 

1977 673 744 1417 47.49 52.51 

1978 437 772 1209 36.15 63.85 

1979 386 1,142 1528 25.26 74.74 

1980 461 1,102 1563 29.49 70.51 

1981 686 778 1464 46.86 53.14 

1982 362 320 682 53.08 46.92 

1983 417 934 1351 30.87 69.13 

1984 238 422 660 36.06 63.94 

1985 364 767 1131 32.18 67.82 

1986 412 1,424 1836 22.44 77.56 

1987 372 785 1157 32.15 67.85 

1988 374 992 1366 27.38 72.62 

1989 455 1,287 1742 26.12 73.88 

1990 294 801 1095 26.85 73.15 

1991 293 1,278 1571 18.65 81.35 

1992 196 1,120 1316 14.89 85.11 

1993 190 991 1181 16.09 83.91 

1994 55 398 453 12.14 87.86 

1995 184 1,766 1950 9.44 90.56 

1996 299 2,311 2610 11.46 88.54 

1997 166 1,218 1384 11.99 88.01 

1998 391 1,645 2036 19.20 80.80 

1999 695 1,939 2634 26.39 73.61 

2000 931 1,635 2566 36.28 63.72 

2001 957 3,904 4861 19.69 80.31 

Information adapted from table 7 and 8 ODFW 2002 

September 2003 – Final 5-35 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Number of Hatchery Strays 

Adult steelhead escapement estimates for the Deschutes River demonstrate a significant 

increase in out-of-basin strays since the early 1990s (ODFW 2002). The percentage of 

stray hatchery fish as determined by fin marks at Sherars Falls has exceeded 70 percent of 

the hatchery component from 1993 to 2000 but decreased to 67.7 percent in 2001 (Table 

5-5 ); 32.3 percent of the hatchery fish were of Round Butte Hatchery origin. From 1988 to 

1992, stray hatchery-origin steelhead at the Sherars Falls trap ranged from 32.8 to 67.4 

percent. During the same period (1988 to 1992) the percentage of wild fish ranged from 

14.9 to 27.4 percent (Table 5-4). While some of the stray steelhead that enter the Deschutes 

River are known to leave and return eventually to their streams of origin elsewhere in the 

Columbia basin prior to spawning (preliminary findings from a tagging study by Bjornn 

and Jepson [NMFS 2000a]), the evidence suggests that the majority of the stray steelhead 

migrating past Sherars Falls spawn in the Deschutes River basin. ODFW (2002) estimated 

recently that the percentage of wild fish in the Deschutes basin that are strays is about 3 

percent (Table 5-6, adapted from ODFW 2002 Table 14). 

Straying has been observed during periods when the water of the Deschutes River is cooler 

than that of the Columbia River. The cooler water provides a thermal refugium for 

upstream-migrating adult steelhead. Straying behavior may occur as steelhead seek cooler 

water, it may be associated with transportation, and may be an evolutionary adaptation that 

enhances survival (NMFS 2000b). Peery and Bjornn (2002) reported that evidence 

suggests that some salmon and steelhead will delay their upstream migration to avoid warm 

water conditions. 

Redd Counts 

Redd counts for Buck Hollow Creek, Bakeoven Creek, and Trout Creek have exhibited an 

increasing trend from 1990 to 2002 (Table 5-7, adapted from ODFW [2002] Table 11; 

Table 5-8, adapted from ODFW [2002] Table 12; and Table 5-9, adapted from ODFW 

[2002] Table 13, respectively). In Buck Hollow Creek, although the same sites were not 

surveyed every year, early in the time series starting in 1990, redd counts were low, ranging 

from 8 to 85 from 1990 to 1996; from 1997 to 2002, redd counts increased and ranged from 

5-36 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

110 to 445 in 2001. The number of redds decreased to 221 in 2002. If one looks at one site 

such as the Powerline/Mouth site, the number of redds ranges from 7 in 1994 to 241 in 

2001. Overall, the increase in number of redds from 1997 to 2002 compared to the number 

of redds from 1990 to 1996 seems to indicate an increase in the number of spawning 

steelhead. In Bakeoven Creek, there was also a low number of redds from 1990 to 1996 

with a steady increase from 1997 to 2002, with a high of 480 redds in 2001, followed by a 

decrease to 214 in 2002. In Trout Creek, starting in 1994, redd numbers per mile are low 

until 2000, when the number increases dramatically from that seen from 1994 to 1999, 

reaching a high of 16.3 per mile in 2001, with a decrease to 13.3 in 2002. This is the same 

temporal pattern of recently increased numbers of redds documented in Buck Hollow and 

Bakeoven Creeks, although units differ. These counts include redds from both wild and 

hatchery summer steelhead. 

Deschutes River Steelhead 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 

Year 1977 - 2001 

Numbers 

W ild Steelhead Hatchery Steelhead 

Figure 5-5. Wild and Hatchery Steelhead Captured at the Sherars Falls Trap 

September 2003 – Final 5-37 
Table 5-5. Number and Percent of Round Butte Hatchery Origin and Stray HatcheryOrigin Summer Steelhead as Determined by Fin Mark, Captured at the Sherars Falls 

Trap, By Year 

Trap Year Round Butte Hatchery Stray Hatchery-Origin 

Number % Total Catch Number % Total Catch 

 

1988 665 67.2 324 32.8 

1989 521 40.5 776 59.5 

1990 352 44.0 448 56.0 

1991 417 32.6 861 67.4 

1992 506 45.2 614 54.8 

 

1993 196 19.8 795 80.2 

1994 118 29.7 280 70.3 

1995 458 25.9 1,308 74.1 

1996 649 28.1 1,662 71.9 

1997 280 23.0 936 77.0 

 

1998 423 25.8 1,220 74.3 

1999 465 24.0 1,474 76.0 

2000 483 29.6 1,147 70.4 

2001 1,262 32.3 2,642 67.7 

Run Year 

Wild Origin 

Number % 

Stray Hatchery 

Number % 

Round Butte Hatchery 

Number %

81-82 245 11.3 156 7.4 1,760 81.3

82-83 344 16.7 167 8.8 1,547 74.6

83-84 814 17.3 1,452 33.0 2,439 49.7

84-85 603 12.9 795 17.0 3,278 71.1

85-86 686 14.4 943 19.7 3,153 65.9

 

86-87 467 10.7 1,538 33.4 2,640 57.6

87-88 160 6.6 796 32.1 1,484 61.3

88-89 123 7.4 300 17.7 1,247 74.9

89-90 136 9.1 524 35.2 829 55.7

90-91 82 7.4 428 35.8 606 56.8

 

91-92 101 4.4 849 36.7 1,365 58.9

92-93 59 3.6 427 26.0 1,157 70.4

93-94 65 12.0 288 53.0 190 35.0

94-95 27 2.0 642 53.0 753 45.0

95-96 32 1.6 976 48.6 1,000 49.8

 

96-97 126 2.2 2,001 34.9 3,605 62.9

97-98 194 3.8 2,459 48.3 2,440 47.9

98-99 155 6.0 1,284 49.9 1,135 44.1

99-00 83 4.4 768 40.4 1,050 55.2

00-01 114 4.1 1,103 39.2 1,593 56.7

 

01-02 282 3.2 3,674 41.3 4,942 55.5

Information adapted from ODFW 2002 Table 14 

Table 5-6. Number and Percent of Wild, Stray, and Round Butte Hatchery-Origin 

Summer Steelhead Returning to the Pelton Trap, By Run Year. 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Source: (Prybil 2002). 

5-38 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Mainte

Table 5-7. Summer Steelhead Redd Counts, Buck Hollow Creek, By Section, By Year 

Stream section 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Hauser/Bronx 4 0 2 

Bronx/Finnegan 1 Finnegan/Mays 5 Spears/Bronx 5 Bronx/Mays 5 

3 

0 3 7 10 

Mays/Powerline 7 

5 

1 5 9 63 36 37 

Powerline/Mouth 73 72 34 40 7 64 48 62 133 107 

Powerline/ Webb fence Webb fence/ Mouth Total 85 72 34 48 8 69 65 136 179 152 

Information adapted from ODFW 2002 Table 11. 

Table 5-8. Summer Steelhead Redd Counts, Bakeoven Creek, By Section, By Year 

Site 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Sugarloaf 1 0 - 2 - 7 14 18 11 33 

Powerline 21 8 9 19 13 13 21 39 57 56 Total 22 8 9 21 13 20 35 57 68 89 

All survey dates were in March except for 1993, 1994, and 1997 when the surveys were conducted in April. Information adapted from ODFW 2002 Table 12. 

September 2003 – Final 5-39 
Table 5-9. Results of Summer Steelhead Redd Surveys 

in the Trout Creek Drainage, By Year 

Year Miles Number Number Fish Redds 

Surveyed Fish Redds Per Mile Per Mile 

1988 9.4 17 23 1.8 2.5

1989 10.5 24 23 2.8 2.2

1990 14.4 22 42 1.5 2.9

1991 16.9 3 16 0.2 1.1

1992 16.4 6 6 0.4 0.4

1993 28.2 4 15 0.1 0.5

 

1994 16.25 0 0 0.0 0.0

1995 18.25 0 8 0.0 0.4

1996 12.5 6 14 0.5 1.1

1997 23.5 21 50 0.9 2.1

1998 21.0 13 44 0.6 2.1

1999 22.95 12 59 0.2 2.6

 

2000 54.1 39 461 0.7 8.5

2001 36.6 56 595 1.5 16.3

2002 65.2 95 866 1.5 13.3

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Starting in 1993, surveys were conducted only above the confluence with Foley Creek. Data should not 

be compared before and after 1993. 1996 data all downstream from Foley Creek. 

Information adapted from ODFW 2002 Table 13. 

Juvenile Outmigration 

Deschutes River hatchery and wild steelhead generally outmigrate in the spring as 2-yearold fish, and pass The Dalles Dam and Bonneville Dam. As discussed above, The Dalles 

Dam has no mechanical juvenile fish bypass system, so juvenile fish pass the dam via 

spill, through the turbines or the sluiceway. Zabel et al. (2001) reported that for 

combined hatchery and wild juvenile Snake River-origin steelhead, the estimated survival 

from John Day Dam tailrace to Bonneville Dam tailrace averaged 0.753 (s.e. 0.063). 

Estimated survival for juvenile steelhead decreased as the migration season progressed 

from early May to the end of May. Although no specific information is available for The 

Dalles Dam, the Zabal et al. (2001) estimate might be representative of survival of 

outmigrating Deschutes River juvenile steelhead, with the exception that they would not 

have been exposed to the same level of predation and other potentially unfavorable 

environmental conditions in The Dalles pool as those fish migrating downstream from the 

John Day Dam tailrace. The Deschutes River enters the Columbia River at RM 205, a 

little less than half the distance from The Dalles Dam to John Day Dam. 

5-40 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.4.2.2 Wild Deschutes River Steelhead 

Wild Deschutes River steelhead are characteristic of A-run summer steelhead (Pribyl 

2002; Busby et al. 1996). One of the major factors limiting wild steelhead in the 

Deschutes River is the migration blockage created by the Pelton and Round Butte Dams 

(NMFS 2000a; Pribyl 2002), completed in 1957 and 1964, respectively. These dams 

have eliminated access to spawning and rearing habitats in the middle Deschutes, 

Metolius, and Crooked River systems (Figure 9-1). Fish passage was attempted at these 

dams soon after construction but with limited success. Passage of adults upstream was 

relatively successful, but dowstream migrating smolts became disoriented once they 

entered Lake Billy Chinook. It became apparent that upriver salmonid runs could not be 

sustained naturally with these facilities; therefore, efforts to maintain naturally spawning 

salmonid populations were abandoned. Historically, Big Falls on the middle Deschutes 

River at RM 132 created a natural barrier that prevented access to the upper Deschutes 

River subbasin by steelhead and other anadromous salmonids. Apparently Big Falls at 

RM 132 was passable in some years, although it is now considered the upstream extent of 

essential fish habitat for Chinook salmon in the upper Deschutes River, as discussed in 

Chapter 9. 

As described in Chapter 7 of this BA, ODFW and others are actively studying ways to 

restore anadromous fish runs (including wild steelhead) above the Pelton-Round Butte 

Project in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of the 

project. This BA does not address any aspect of efforts to restore anadromous salmonid 

populations above the Pelton-Round Butte Project. A major obstacle to establishing 

viable self-sustaining anadromous salmonid runs above the project is getting 

outmigrating juvenile salmonids back downstream. There are complex currents in Lake 

Billy Chinook due to temperature and density differences and inflows that disorient 

migrating juvenile salmonids, preventing them from easily locating an exit or outflow. 

Also, Ochoco and Bowman Dams remain migration obstacles further up the system, 

blocking potential passage to historic spawning habitats in the upper Ochoco Creek and 

Crooked River subbasins. However, these areas still have the potential, with substantial 

stream and riparian rehabilitation efforts, to support summer steelhead (Marx 2000). 

Deschutes River adult summer steelhead enter the lower river from June through 

October. Steelhead pass Sherars Falls from July through October, with peak movements 

normally occurring in late September. Summer steelhead spawn in the mainstem Lower 

Deschutes River, the Warm Springs River system, Shitike Creek, Skookum Creek, 

Wapinitia Creek, Eagle Creek and Nena Creeks, the Trout Creek system, Bakeoven 

Creek system, and the Buck Hollow Creek system (CTWSRO 1999). Warm Springs 

River is a significant steelhead producer, as is Shitike Creek (Pribyl 2002). Aney et al. 

(1967) reported that less than 1 percent of the lower Deschutes River provides suitable 

spawning habitat, and most of that is localized in the region downstream from RM 100.1 

to about Shitike Creek. Potential spawning habitat in the White River is limited to the 

September 2003 – Final 5-41 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

lower 2 miles by an impassable falls. ODFW does not routinely survey the White River 

and is uncertain whether steelhead occur in this area (Pribyl 2002), although a 2001 BLM 

and USFS biological assessment indicated that spawning occurs there (BLM and USFS 

2001), as do Cramer and Beamesderfer (2001). The Warm Springs National Fish 

Hatchery operates a collection weir at RM 9 on the Warm Springs River, where it sorts 

migrating adult salmonids and retains sufficient fish for hatchery production. The 

hatchery releases wild steelhead back into the river to spawn naturally (Pribyl 2002). 

Good quality spawning habitat exists upstream from the Warm Springs National Fish 

Hatchery. 

Spawning in the relatively warmer eastside tributaries, such as Trout Creek and 

Bakeoven Creek, occurs from January through mid-April. Spawning in the lower 

Deschutes River and the cooler westside tributaries such as Warm Springs River and 

Shitike Creek, usually begins in April and continues through May (CTWSRO 1999). 

Westside tributaries are generally colder than eastside tributaries since their flows mostly 

originate from snowmelt on the eastern slopes of the Cascades, while eastside tributaries 

are mostly groundwater fed (Pribyl 2002). Eastside tributaries also likely have reduced 

flows during the hotter part of the summer. Steelhead appear to be opportunistic and in 

some years ascend small tributaries during short periods of high water to spawn in late 

winter and spring. The majority of the juvenile steelhead rear for 2 years before smolting 

and emigrating to the ocean. However, smolt ages can vary from 1 to 4 years. Steelhead 

generally rear in the ocean for 2 years before returning to the Deschutes River system as 

adults to spawn. 

Chilcote (ODFW 2002) reported that the estimated preharvest abundance of wild 

steelhead in the Deschutes River at Sherars Falls has generally increased in the last few 

years from lows in the early 1990s (Table 5-10). 

Chilcote (1998) hypothesized that the potential for ecological and genetic interactions 

between resident rainbow/redband trout and naturally spawning steelhead in the 

Deschutes River may also be a significant factor in the decline of wild steelhead 

numbers. However, Zimmerman and Reeves (2000) reported that native wild steelhead 

and rainbow/redband trout appear to be reproductively isolated in the Deschutes River. 

5-42 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 5-10. Estimated Preharvest Abundance of Wild Steelhead in the 

Deschutes River at Sherars Falls.
 

Run year/spawn year Numbers 

1994/1995 547 

1995/1996 1887 

1996/1997 3862 

1997/1998 2067 

1998/1999 4240 

1999/2000 5274 

2000/2001 9493 

2001/2002 9273 

Cumulative Risk Initiative Modeling for Deschutes River Steelhead 

McClure et al. (2000) in their Cumulative Risk Initiative modeling indicated that the 

steelhead populations in the Deschutes River, Shitike Creek, and Warm Springs National 

Fish Hatchery had a λ (lambda or population growth rate) of 0.96, 0.93, and 0.91. These 

rates assumed zero percent success of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. Under various 

scenarios in a Dennis Extinction Analysis, with the assumption that hatchery fish 

reproduce at 20 and 80 percent the rate of wild fish, for the Deschutes River summer 

steelhead, there is a probability of 1.0 that Deschutes River summer steelhead will 

decline 50 percent in 24, 48, and 100 years, as well as decline by 90 percent in 24, 48, 

and 100 years (McClure et al. 2000). For the MCR steelhead ESU as a whole, NMFS 

(2000a) estimated that the median population growth rate (lambda) over the base period 

ranged from 0.88 to 0.75, decreasing as the effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the 

wild increases compared to that of wild fish. McClure et al. (2000) estimated the risk of 

absolute extinction within 100 years for the Deschutes River summer steelhead as 1.00, 

assuming that hatchery fish spawning in the wild do not successfully reproduce (i.e., 

hatchery effectiveness = 0) (Table B-5 in McClure et al. 2000); assuming that the 

hatchery fish spawning in the wild do reproduce as successfully as wild-origin fish 

(hatchery effectiveness = 100 percent), the risk of absolute extinction within 100 years 

for the Deschutes River summer steelhead is also 1.00 (Table B-6 in McClure et al. 

2000). McClure et al. (2000) used data from brood years 1980 to 1994, so their analysis 

does not consider recent increases in adult steelhead returns. 

September 2003 – Final 5-43 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Overall, evidence appears to indicate that the wild Deschutes River steelhead may remain 

at some risk, especially when environmental factors are less favorable (i.e., reduced 

ocean productivity and conditions in migration corridor of the Columbia River). Data 

over time have shown that there is an upward trend in populations numbers when 

environmental conditions improve, such as the recent increased returns of salmon and 

steelhead to the Columbia River in 2001 and 2002 thought to be mediated by 

substantially improved ocean conditions (lower water temperature and increased prey 

populations and abundance, among other factors). The decadal-scale fluctuations in 

ocean productivity and environmental conditions were not considered in the McClure et 

al. (2000) extinction analysis. 

Interim Abundance and Productivity Targets 

The NMFS has set interim abundance and productivity targets for naturally produced 

Deschutes River steelhead population. The target is 6,300 naturally produced spawners 

below Pelton Dam, and since the MCR steelhead ESU is currently below recovery levels, 

lambda will need to be greater than 1.0 over a 40-48 year period (4 April 2002 letter from 

Mr. Bob Lohn to Mr. Frank L. Cassidy). The NPPC (1990) noted that the objective for 

summer steelhead is to provide 5,000 to 11,000 fish for recreational and tribal fisheries, 

and a spawning escapement of 10,000 natural spawners and 600 to 1,000 hatchery brood 

stock all through a return of 16,000 to 22,000 summer steelhead annually to the 

Deschutes River. These levels of wild and hatchery adult steelhead returns have not yet 

been achieved (Table 5-4). 

Instream flow studies for the lower Deschutes River in the 1960s indicated that while 

flows in the lower Deschutes River may be mostly adequate to sustain anadromous 

salmonid populations (e.g., steelhead), improved (or higher) flows would be beneficial to 

habitat maintenance and would increase usable spawning habitat (Pribyl 2001). The 

lower Deschutes River is fortunate to have fairly stable and uniform flows (NPPC 1990, 

Fassnacht et al. 2002). On below-average flow years, reduced flows may result in 

reduced habitat and water velocity for salmonids. In high water years, upstream 

diversion may actually be beneficial in reducing peak flows that reduce juvenile habitat 

along the edges of the lower river. While drought may also have contributed to reduced 

steelhead production, this may be less important as a factor contributing to decline, partly 

because during the same time period the resident/redband trout population has apparently 

remained stable. There remains the concern by ODFW that there may be the loss in 

reproductive capacity of wild Deschutes River steelhead due to genetic mixing with large 

numbers of out-of-basin, out-of-ESU strays, as well as reduced survival of wild fish due 

to interactions between hatchery and wild steelhead (ODFW 2003). 

5-44 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Habitat Conditions 

NMFS has formulated a matrix of pathways and indicators that contribute to determining 

whether watersheds are properly functioning, at risk, or not functioning properly. The six 

pathways with their associated indicators are shown in Table 5-11, adapted from NMFS 

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators. Complete details regarding these pathways and 

indicators are available at <http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/ 

pubs/matrix.pdf>. We use the matrix to address major habitat features in the lower 

Deschutes River. 

Discussed below are the pathways and indicators and summarized or referenced 

information relevant to evaluating the potential effects of the continued operation and 

maintenance of Reclamation’s Deschutes River basin projects on steelhead for these 

pathways and indicators. Some of this information is reiterated from above discussions. 

Table 5-11. NMFS Matrix of Watershed Pathways and Indicators. 

Pathway Indicators 

Water quality Temperature 

Sediment/Turbidity 

Chemical contaminants/ Nutrients 

Habitat Access Physical barriers 

Habitat Elements Substrate 

Large woody debris 

Pool frequency 

Pool quality 

Off-channel habitat 

Refugia (remnant habitat) 

Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth ratio 

Streambank condition 

Floodplain connectivity 

Flow/Hydrology Change in peak/base flows 

Increase in drainage network 

Watershed conditions Road density and location 

Disturbance history 

Riparian reserves 

September 2003 – Final 5-45 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Water Quality 

Water temperature data for the lower Deschutes River near Madras, Oregon, for the 

period 1972 to 1988 were compiled by Huntington et al. (1999) and provide a reasonably 

comprehensive assessment of recent water temperatures (Table 5-12). These average 

water temperatures are less than the ODEQ criteria of 64EF (17.8EC) for anadromous 

salmonids. 

Table 5-12. Mean Weekly Water Temperatures for the Lower Deschutes River at 

the USGS Gage near Madras, OR, 1972-1988, (by month) 

Month Number of weeks Mean weekly S.E. (Standard Error) 

October 54 12.5EC 0.10 

November 59 10.3EC 0.10 

December 61 8.1EC 0.11 

January 63 6.6EC 0.09 

February 60 6.2EC 0.07 

March 68 6.9EC 0.08 

April 68 8.0EC 0.09 

May 68 9.6EC 0.10 

June 69 11.3EC 0.13 

July 62 12.7EC 0.14 

August 58 13.5EC 0.11 

September 52 13.6EC 0.09 

Data extracted from Huntington et al. 1999, Table 6. 

The White River below Lower Falls is listed as exceeding the water temperature standard 

of 64°F (17.8°C) for 100, 58, and 72 days in 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. 

However, ODFW has not documented use of the lower 2 miles of the White River by 

steelhead. Raymond et al. (1998) reported that the river temperature during their May 

study period averaged 12.5°C and about 16°C in July. Deschutes River water 

temperatures increased downstream from the Pelton Reregulating Dam to the mouth by 

about 2.5°C in May and September, and by 7.5°C in July. As reported by Aney et al. 

(1967), the majority of suitable spawning habitat is located in the Deschutes River 

downstream from RM 100.1 to Shitike Creek. Water temperatures for spawning, 

5-46 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

incubation, and early rearing are suitable in this reach of the river. The Deschutes River 

from its mouth upstream to the White River is 303(d) listed for pH and summer water 

temperature. 

Sediment/Turbidity B O’Connor et al. (2002) provide an extensive review of sediment 

sources and the sediment budget of the Deschutes River basin. There are low rates of 

sediment delivery to the Deschutes River due to steady streamflows with low sediment 

supply. Sediment recruitment has been reduced by diversions, lakes, and dams. Sources 

of sediment to the lower Deschutes River are limited (Fassnacht and Grant 1995). Trout 

Creek, Warm Springs River, and the White River are likely the principal sources of 

sediment to the lower Deschutes River (O’Connor et al. 2002). The White River gaging 

station at Tygh Valley recorded an annual suspended sediment load of 108,821.96 tons 

during the 1983 water year (Fassnacht and Grant 1995), one of the major contributors of 

sediment to the lower Deschutes River since sediment contributions from the Crooked 

River are now for the most part retained in Lake Billy Chinook. The White River 

transports large quantities of glacial material to the lower Deschutes River (Fassnacht et 

al. 1995; Pribyl 2002). 

Nutrients and Contaminants B As discussed in the water quality report (Appendix B), 

water quality in the lower Deschutes River in large part is driven by operation of the 

Pelton-Round Butte Project and the seasonal dynamics of environmental conditions in the 

reservoirs. The water quality in the Pelton-Round Butte Project reservoirs is generally 

good, even though there are phosphorous and silicon inputs from natural sources in 

tributaries to the reservoirs and introduced nitrogen from upstream anthropogenic 

activities that create seasonal algal blooms that somewhat degrade reservoir water 

quality. The reservoirs of the Pelton-Round Butte Project retain water from the nutrientrich tributaries, the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers in the epilimnion during the 

summer when biological activity is at its peak, and discharge cooler water with lower 

nutrient concentrations downstream. Groundwater recharge offsets some of the adverse 

effects of upstream uses on water quality in the reservoirs. 

A 3-year limnological study of the Pelton-Round Butte Project found that the 

concentration of nitrogen in the Deschutes River downstream from the project was lower 

than the expected concentration (PGE 2002). Pollutants from agricultural activity and 

private land use in the Wapinitia Project area have a minimal affect on water quality in 

the lower Deschutes River. 

Dissolved Oxygen B From the Pelton Reregulating Dam to the mouth of the White River, 

the Deschutes River is on the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list of water quality limited 

waterbodies because it fails to meet the dissolved oxygen standard for spawning 

salmonids (11 mg/L or 95 percent saturation) from 1 October to 31 July (Lewis and 

Raymond 2000). Dissolved oxygen levels have sometimes been below the existing 

standard for coldwater aquatic life (8 mg/L or 90 percent saturation) from mid-summer to 

September 2003 – Final 5-47 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

early fall (Lewis and Raymond 2000). Lewis and Raymond (2000) reported that mean 

ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations for four sites in the Deschutes River from just 

downstream from the Pelton Reregulating Dam to Trout Creek increased from 7.46 to 

9.22 mg/L in September 1999. Under various spill scenarios, dissolved oxygen 

concentrations increased, but not proportional to the volume of spill. Spill provided some 

reaeration of the river water, but the effect diminished progressively downstream. 

Habitat Access 

Steelhead reportedly migrated as far as 140 miles up the Crooked River, and up the 

Deschutes River to Big Falls at RM 132. Access to the upper Deschutes River and other 

tributaries was eliminated with the construction of Pelton Dam. Except for some 

attempts at passing adult fish around the Pelton-Round Butte Project in the 1960s and an 

ongoing hatchery steelhead operation, steelhead are now restricted to the lower Deschutes 

River downstream from Pelton Reregulating Dam at RM 100.1. Steelhead have 

unrestricted access to the major and minor tributaries to the lower Deschutes River, such 

as Shitike Creek, Warm Springs River, Trout Creek, Bakeoven Creek, and Buck Hollow 

Creeks. 

Habitat Elements 

Substrate – Aney et al. (1967) reported that the lower Deschutes River is mostly coarse 

rubble, boulders, and bedrock. They note that in the 100-mile lower river, gravel areas 

for suitable fish spawning make up less than 1 percent of the total stream bottom. The 

highest amount of spawning gravel is located in the reach of the lower river downstream 

from the Pelton-Round Butte Complex to Shitike Creek, where about 9 percent of the 

total streambed is suitable for spawning. Areas downstream from Shitike Creek have 

substantially less suitable spawning gravels as a percentage of the total streambed. 

Tributaries downstream contribute sediment that reduces the quality of spawning habitat. 

The White River and other tributaries contribute substantial sediment in the form of silt 

and sand. Some areas of the river near the mouth and between Maupin and Twin Tunnels 

is nearly all basalt bedrock. 

Large Woody Debris – Very large woody debris (> 50 ft in length) is sparse in the lower 

Deschutes River (Minear 1999). In 1995, 13 occurrences of very large wood were 

recorded in the 100 miles of the lower Deschutes River, compared to 7 pieces in 1944. 

Most of this wood was located in the main channel of the river, and more was associated 

with curves than straight sections of the channel. Large wood (> 13 ft in length), not 

including estimated pieces of wood in logjams and rootwads, was more abundant in the 

upper 30 miles of the lower river and less so between RM 50 and 70, and had an overall 

density of 31.5 pieces per river mile (Minear 1999). By including the estimated amount 

of wood pieces in logjams and rootwads, the amount of wood increased to 53.4 pieces per 

mile. Most of this large wood (88 percent) occurred in the main channel. However, after 

5-48 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

the 1996 flood event, less wood was present in the upper 50 miles of river compared to 

the lower 50 miles of river, and there was less wood overall, 24.5 pieces per river mile 

compared to 31.5 prior to the flood. Minear (1999) described the source of large woody 

debris to the lower Deschutes River, its composition, and stated that the results of her 

study indicated that there is a greater abundance of large wood in the lower Deschutes 

River than is typical of other streams in the region. One possible reason for this is that 

the constant base flow of the river does not subject the riparian vegetation to annual 

periods of desiccation that occurs in many other high desert streams, so the relatively 

abundant riparian vegetation, including white alder and cottonwood, contribute to a 

greater supply of in-channel wood. 

Refugia – Islands that are formed as a result of the input of large wood, contributing to 

localized changes in geomorphology and creation of more complex and heterogeneous 

habitat, can provide refugia for fish and other aquatic organisms (Minear 1999). 

Channel Conditions and Dynamics 

Width/Depth Ratio – The channel width of the lower Deschutes River averaged 219 feet 

and increased with distance downstream (Minear 1999). Aney et al. (1967) reported a 

lower Deschutes River average width of 236 feet, with a range from 30 to 560 feet. 

Sherars Falls is the most constrained point on the lower river. No data on depth in the 

Deschutes River were available comparable to the width information reported by Aney et 

al. (1967). A modified IFIM study was conducted under contract, but was limited to a 

wadable depth (Pribyl Sept. 3, 2003), so there are no complete cross-sectional profiles 

available for the lower Deschutes River that could provide data to estimate a width/depth 

ratio. 

Streambank Condition – Over 100 years of livestock grazing seriously degraded the 

streambanks of the lower Deschutes River and caused extensive loss of riparian 

vegetation. Grazing has been excluded from the lower 25 miles of the lower river since 

1985, and riparian vegetation has increased substantially since that time (Minear 1999). 

At 14 sites along the lower Deschutes River, from RM 87.0 (the mouth of Trout Creek) to 

RM 30.5, Minear (1999) reported improved riparian conditions at 10 sites, and no change 

at 4 sites, relative to historic conditions documented in old photographs. Some of the 

riparian white alder and cottonwood contribute to the large wood found in the river. 

Floodplain Connectivity – The river is mostly constrained in a deep canyon and has a 

relatively limited floodplain. The Deschutes River is unique in that it is a high desert 

stream originating from snowmelt on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, with some 

snowmelt-sourced tributaries on the west side and some smaller groundwater-fed 

tributaries on the east side. 

September 2003 – Final 5-49 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Flow/Hydrology 

Change in Peak/Base Flows – Fassnacht et al. (2002) reported that the lower Deschutes 

River has a relatively uniform and stable flow. One report indicated that the difference 

from minimum to maximum flow at the mouth of the Deschutes River was only about 6 

times, indicating a very stable and steady flow. Some large floods have occurred 

historically; in recent times large flood events have occurred in 1964, 1996, and 2000, 

with 1996 being the largest with an instantaneous flow of 70,300 cfs on 8 February. 

Table 5-3 shows daily mean flows in cfs on a monthly basis along with 10, 50, and 90 

percent exceedance values. 

Increase in Drainage Network – Since the lower Deschutes River is a component of a 

relatively stable watershed and is constrained in a relatively steep and stable canyon, 

there is little opportunity for any increase or change in the drainage network at this time. 

Watershed Conditions 

Road Density and Location – The lower 25 miles of the Deschutes River is nearly 

roadless; there is a gravel road on the east side restricted to authorized vehicle use only, 

but open to hikers, bicyclists, and horseback riders. An unrestricted road exists from near 

Sherars Falls to Mack’s Canyon for recreational access to the river, and there is a paved 

highway along the river from Sherars Falls to Maupin. There are some gravel access 

roads upstream from Maupin, but in general the river has limited road access. There are 

additional paved roads further upstream. Road construction can be a source of sediment 

to the river, degrading water quality, altering hydrologic regimes, and restricting the 

width of the riparian area (Minear 1999). 

Disturbance History – In the early part of the 20th century, two competing companies 

attempted to build railroads up both sides of the canyon from the Columbia River. The 

railroad curently operates mostly on the west bank to approximately 12 miles north of 

Madras. Sidecasting of material during railroad construction may have altered the 

riverine geomorphology, but it is unknown to what degree this occurred. Livestock 

grazing has disturbed the watershed, especially the riparian area, as has road construction. 

Livestock grazing has been restricted in some reaches of the lower river, and the 

condition of the riparian zone has improved notably (Pribyl 2002). 

5.5 CANADA LYNX 

5.5.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline 

Although over-trapping in the 1980s drastically reduced lynx numbers, it is the 

destruction and modification of important lynx and hare habitat that is the main threat to 

Canada lynx survival within the United States (BLM and USFS 2001; Federal Register 

5-50 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

65:16052; USFWS 2000a). According to the USFWS, in the Cascades Region 99 

percent of lynx forest types (totaling 4.1 million acres) is managed by the USFS. The 

remaining 1 percent is divided between the BLM and other ownership. Eighty-seven 

percent of lynx forest types managed by government agencies occur in non-developed 

land allocations. Forests are changed through timber harvest, fire suppression, and 

conversion to agricultural land. However, as a very large proportion of lynx type forest 

within the Cascades Region occurs on Federal lands managed in non-developmental 

status, it is determined that regional effects of timber harvest and land conversion are at 

levels non-threatening to the Canada lynx (Federal Register 65:16052). 

5.5.2 Current Status 

There is no evidence of self-maintaining populations of Canada lynx in the state of 

Oregon (Verts 1998). Lynx have probably always occurred intermittently in Oregon, 

although the historical or current presence of resident populations within the State has not 

been confirmed (USFWS 2000a). Their Oregon presence may be a result of migrating 

individuals in search of better foraging opportunities as prey populations in the northern 

lynx range decline (Federal Register 65:16052). 

In 1999, lynx surveys were conducted on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests 

using a survey designed to attract lynx to a site to “cheek rub” on a carpet pad, leaving 

hair that was collected for DNA analysis. These surveys resulted in no lynx detections. 

This same survey was repeated in 2000 and 2001, but results are not yet available (BLM 

and USFS 2001). 

The second edition of the LCAS, released in August 2000, identified one Lynx Analysis 

Unit on the Deschutes National Forest, based on primary habitat requirements (vegetation 

providing denning, foraging, and cover opportunities) (BLM and USFS 2001). This 

Lynx Analysis Unit is located southwest of Sisters, west of Bend, and north of Crane 

Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs, outside of any Reclamation project O&M impact area. 

The USFS and USFWS have mapped the scrub habitats west, north, and east of Wickiup 

Dam as potential secondary habitat due to the likely existence of snowshoe hares. These 

habitat areas consist of dry, second-growth lodgepole/bitter brush and perennial grasses 

communities. Vegetation density ranges from sparse to dog hair thickets (dense, 

stagnated stand of small diameter trees). 

According to data collected by the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 

(ONHIC), Canada lynx occurrences within Oregon are uncommon, with only five 

sightings in the past two decades within the Deschutes River basin. Insufficient evidence 

exists to determine whether or not these lynx were resident (ONHIC 2002a). 

September 2003 – Final 5-51 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

5.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 

5.6.1 Factors Contributing to Species Decline 

Loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat is the primary threat to the northern spotted 

owl (Federal Register 55:26114 and 57:1796; Tuchmann 1996; BLM and USFS 2001). 

This is due primarily to timber harvest practices, particularly when even-aged (i.e., 

clearcutting) rather than mixed-aged techniques are used. At the time of listing, more 

than 90 percent of the timber harvest throughout the range of the northern spotted owl 

was accomplished using clearcutting methods that produced even-aged stands. In 

addition, timber management regimes at that time indicated it was most economically 

beneficial to harvest stands aged 60-90 years, the approximate age at which these stands 

are beginning to support northern spotted owls. This reduction in habitat forces northern 

spotted owls to crowd into areas that can support the species. If alternate suitable habitat 

does exist, it will often be forced over carrying capacity, reducing the viability of the 

northern spotted owls residing therein (Federal Register 55:26114). 

5.6.2 Current Status 

The final rule for the designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl identifies 

190 areas, encompassing a total of nearly 6.9 million acres. Within Oregon, 76 CHUs 

totaling 3.2 million acres were specified; 2.2 million acres occur on USFS land and 1.0 

million acres occur on BLM land (Federal Register 57:1796). Three CHUs occur near 

the action area; OR-2 near Wasco Dam and Clear Lake, OR-6 near Crane Prairie Dam 

and Reservoir, and OR-7 near Wickiup Dam and Reservoir. Late-successional reserves 

established by the Northwest Forest Plan, totaling 7.4 million acres, generally overlap 

critical habitat areas. In fact, OR-2 has 90 percent overlap acres, OR-6 has 100 percent 

overlap acres, and OR-7 has 99 percent overlap acres (BLM and USFS 2001). The 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center provided the most comprehensive data for 

northern spotted owl occurrences (nesting, roosting, foraging territories). According to 

the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, there are approximately 150 nesting, 

roosting, and foraging territories within the Deschutes River basin, including several near 

Wasco Dam and Clear Lake and Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir (ONHIC 2003b). 

5-52 September 2003 – Final 
CHAPTER 6.0 EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

6.1 INTRODUCTION

“Effects of the action” refers to the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action on listed 

species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or 

interdependent with that action. These effects are considered along with the environmental 

baseline and the predicted cumulative effects (Chapter 7) to determine the overall effects on 

the species (50 CFR § 402.02). 

In accordance with the provisions of the ESA implementing regulations and the USFWS and 

NMFS Section 7 Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998), Reclamation used the following 

definitions to make its effects determinations for each listed species: 

No effect: The conclusion if the action agency determines its proposed action will not 

affect listed species or critical habitat. 

May affect: The conclusion if the action agency determines its proposed action may pose 

effects on listed species or designated critical habitat. The action agency must also 

determine whether the effects constitute an adverse effect as defined below. 

Not likely to adversely affect: Effects on listed species are expected to be 

discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. “Beneficial effects” are 

contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. 

“Insignificant effects” relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale 

where take occurs. “Discountable effects” are those extremely unlikely to occur. 

Based on best judgment, a person would not: 1) be able to meaningfully measure, 

detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or 2) expect discountable effects to occur. 

Likely to adversely affect: Any adverse effect to listed species that may occur as a 

direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent 

actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. In the event 

the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species, but is also 

likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action “is likely to adversely 

affect” the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the 

proposed action, an “is likely to adversely affect” determination should be made. 

September 2003 – Final 6-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reclamation has provided this BA to analyze the effects of its proposed action and to assist 

USFWS and NMFS in preparing a coordinated BiOp. Section 6.2 describes the hydrologic 

model that was developed to determine the hydrologic effects associated with the proposed 

action. Analysis of the effects on each listed species is presented individually in Sections 6.3 

through 6.7. 

6.2 HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Reclamation used the MODSIM model to simulate Reclamation’s project operations. 

Modeled output was used to evaluate the hydrologic effects of the proposed action on ESAlisted species. The computer model’s development and assumptions are described in 

Appendix C. Modeled output is available on CD ROM “MODSIM Simulation of Deschutes 

River Basin Projects Operations Modeling Results” (Stillwater 2003) and is available from 

Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Regional Office, PN-6200, 1150 N. Curtis Road, Suite 100, 

Boise, Idaho, 83706. Modeled system inflows were developed from measured flows and 

reservoir contents from water years 1962 through 1999. 

6.2.1 Description of Modeled Scenarios 

Reclamation developed a hydrologic baseline representing the hydrology component of the 

environmental baseline. The hydrologic baseline provides an analytical tool to isolate flow 

effects of Reclamation’s proposed action. 

Two scenarios were modeled and are described in detail below. One scenario simulates all 

current and ongoing operations in the Deschutes River basin, including Reclamation’s 

proposed action. The second scenario simulates hydrologic conditions if Reclamation’s 

ongoing operations were removed -- without the proposed action. The “with Reclamation” 

scenario can be compared to the “without Reclamation” scenario to determine the hydrologic 

effects of the proposed action. 

Hydrologic Baseline including the Proposed Action (with Reclamation) 

This computer simulation, hereafter referred to as “with Reclamation,” represents current 

facilities and ongoing operational practices within the Deschutes, Crooked River, and White 

River subbasins. The proposed action is a continuation of current Reclamation operations. 

Operational practices reflect the proposed action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and 

other actions such as private irrigation and hydropower operations. Table 6-1 summarizes 

major facilities operating in this scenario. 

6-2 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Hydrologic Baseline with Proposed Action Removed (without Reclamation) 

This computer simulation, hereafter referred to as “without Reclamation,” represents the 

hydrology without Reclamation facilities operating. Changes to interrelated and 

interdependent actions that result from the absence of Reclamation operations are reflected in 

the modeled results. The “without Reclamation” simulation differs from the “with 

Reclamation” simulation in that: 

• The effects of operating Crane Prairie, Wickiup, Haystack, Prineville, and Wasco 

Reservoirs and Dams are removed; 

• The North Unit Main Canal and Crooked River Feed Canal do not divert flow, 

including natural flows; 

• NUID’s Crooked River Pumping Plant does not divert from the Crooked River. 

In the “without Reclamation” scenario, non-Reclamation actions continuing to occur include 

storage and other operations at Ochoco and Crescent Lake Dams and Reservoirs; diversions 

into Walker Canal, Arnold Canal, Central Oregon Canal, Bend Feed Canal, North Canal 

(Pilot Butte), and diversions by Tumalo, Lone Pine, and Swalley Irrigation Districts, and 

operations at the Pelton-Round Butte hydropower complex. 

Removing the operations of Reclamation dams in the “without Reclamation” scenario means 

that reservoirs become run-of-the-river. In addition, water bypasses the North Unit Main 

Canal, the Crooked River Feed Canal, and NUID's Crooked River Pumping Plant. Since the 

modeled systems are dynamic, non-Reclamation facilities respond to these changes in 

operations. For example, Ochoco Reservoir is drawn on more heavily in the “without 

Reclamation” scenario because supplemental water is not available from Prineville 

Reservoir. Run-of-the-river operations dictate that Reclamation reservoirs forego their right 

to fill, so the natural flow that would have been stored is made available for distribution to 

other water rights holders in priority. Natural flows that would have been diverted by North 

Unit Main Canal, the Crooked River Feed Canal, and the Crooked River Pumping Plant also 

are made available for distribution to other water rights holders. 

Table 6-1 summarizes the major facilities that continue to operate in the “without 

Reclamation” scenarios. 

September 2003 Final 6-3 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 6-1. Summary of Major Facilities and Actions Included in Each Modeled 

Scenario 

Scenario 1: With Reclamation Scenario 2: Without Reclamation

Deschutes Project 

Crane Prairie Dam and Reservoir U storage and release U passes natural inflow 

Wickiup Dam and Reservoir U storage and release U passes natural inflow 

Crescent Lake Dam and Reservoir U storage and release U storage and release 

Walker Canal U diverts natural flow U diverts natural flow 

Arnold Diversion Dam and Canal U diverts Crane Prairie Reservoir U diverts natural flow only 

storage and natural flow 

Central Oregon Headworks and U diverts Crane Prairie Reservoir U diverts natural flow only 

Canal storage and natural flow 

Bend Feed Canal U diverts Crescent Lake storage and U diverts Crescent Lake storage and 

natural flows natural flows 

North Unit Headworks and Main 

Canal U diverts Wickiup Reservoir storage 

and natural flow 

U no diversions 

North Canal (Pilot Butte) U diverts Crane Prairie Reservoir 

storage and natural flow 

U diverts natural flow only 

Lone Pine Canal U diverts Crane Prairie Reservoir 

storage and natural flow 

U diverts natural flow only 

Swalley Canal U diverts natural flow U diverts natural flow 

Diversions from Tumalo and Squaw U diverts natural flow U diverts natural flow 

creeks 

Haystack Dam and Reservoir U storage and release U no operation 

Crooked River Pumping Plant U diverts Crooked River natural flow U no operation 

Crooked River Project 

Bowman Dam and Prineville U storage and release U passes natural inflow 

Reservoir 

Crooked River Diversion Dam & U diverts Prineville Reservoir storage U no diversion 

Feed Canal and natural flow 

Crooked River Distribution Canal U delivery of Prineville Reservoir U no operation 

storage and conveyance of natural 

flow 

Barnes Butte Pumping Plant and U delivery of Prineville Reservoir U no operation 

Ochoco Re-lift Plant storage and conveyance of natural 

flow 

9 small pumping plants U delivery of Prineville Reservoir U no operation 

storage and conveyance of natural 

flow 

Ochoco Dam and Reservoir U storage and release U storage and release 

Ochoco Main Canal, Rye Grass, U diverts Ochoco Reservoir storage U diverts Ochoco Reservoir storage 

and other distribution canals and natural flow; conveys Prineville and natural flow only (no Crooked River 

Reservoir storage and Crooked River water) 

natural flow 

Rice Baldwin Ditch U diverts Prineville Reservoir storage U diverts natural flow only 

and natural flow 

People’s Ditch U diverts Prineville Reservoir storage U diverts natural flow only 

and natural flow 

6-4 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Scenario 1: With Reclamation Scenario 2: Without Reclamation

Central Ditch U diverts Prineville Reservoir storage 

and natural flow 

U diverts natural flow only 

Lowline Ditch U diverts Prineville Reservoir storage 

and natural flow 

U diverts natural flow only 

Wapinitia Project

Wasco Dam and Clear Lake U storage and release U passes natural inflow 

Other

Pelton-Round Butte Hydro Complex U hydropower operations U hydropower operations 

6.2.2 Determination of Flow Effects 

Modeled output for the computer simulations can be viewed using Pisces, and is available on 

the CD ROM “MODSIM Simulation of Deschutes River Basin Projects Operations Modeling 

Results.” Modeled output is provided for reservoir elevations and river flows as time series; 

typical wet, dry, and normal years; and exceedance curves. Modeled end-of-the-month 

reservoir elevations are provided for Crane Prairie, Wickiup, Crescent Lake, Prineville, and 

Ochoco Reservoirs. Modeled river flows are provided for the Deschutes River below 

Wickiup Reservoir, below Bend, near Culver, near Madras (below Lake Billy Chinook), and 

at Moody, and for the Crooked River below Bowman Dam, and near Terrebonne (below 

Crooked River Pumping Plant). 

The effects of the proposed action on streamflows in the middle and lower Deschutes can be 

evaluated by comparing the modeled average monthly flows for the “with Reclamation” to 

the “without Reclamation” flows at the 10, 50, and 90 percent exceedance levels. Table 6-2 

shows modeled average monthly flows at these exceedance levels for the two scenarios at 

three locations on the Deschutes River. 

• Deschutes River Near Culver (14076500) 

• Deschutes River Near Madras (14092500) 

• Deschutes River at Moody (14103000) 

Figure 3-1 (Chapter 3) shows the relative location of these stream gages. 

September 2003 Final 6-5 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

An exceedance level is the probability that the value is equaled or exceeded. For example, in 

Table 6-2 at the Deschutes River Near Culver for the “with Reclamation” scenario, there is a 

10 percent probability that average monthly October flows will equal or exceed 1,603 cfs. 

There is a 50 percent probability that average monthly October flows will equal or exceed 

774 cfs. There is a 90 percent probability that average monthly October flows will equal or 

exceed 687 cfs. 

The flow effects due to the proposed action are determined by subtracting the “without 

Reclamation” scenario flows from the “with Reclamation” scenario flows. Although this 

approach does not distinguish flow differences on a year by year basis, it can be used to 

evaluate the magnitude and trends of the proposed action effects. Comparing “without 

Reclamation” to “with Reclamation” flows listed in Table 6-2, demonstrates the following 

general trends in the Deschutes River Near Culver and downstream. 

• Reclamation activities decrease spring and summer flows when Reclamation diverters 

rely on natural flows versus storage water; because releases from storage are not 

being made; 

• Reclamation activities maintain or increase summer flows when Reclamation 

diverters rely on stored water; 

• Reclamation activities reduce winter flows (with some exceptions) by storing in 

Reclamation reservoirs; and 

• River flows are increased from year-round gains attributed to recharge from irrigators 

using project water. See Appendix C for discussion of groundwater gains. 

6-6 September 2003 – Final 
TABLE 6-2. MODELED FLOWS IN THE DESCHUTES RIVER 

Deschutes River Near Culver Deschutes River Near Madras D

Percent With Without Flow Effects due to With Without Flow Effects due to With 

Exceedance Reclamation Reclamation Proposed Action Reclamation Reclamation Proposed Action Reclamation 

(%) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 

October October 

10 1603 1944 -341 4928 5337 -409 5648 

50 774 1396 -622 4201 4593 -392 4742 

90 687 1157 -470 3719 4098 -379 4127 

November November 

10 1618 2138 -520 5420 6133 -713 6494 

50 1116 1751 -635 4635 5208 -573 5454 

90 931 1465 -534 4268 4701 -433 4799 

December December 

10 2058 2243 -185 6372 6956 -584 9507 

50 1252 1721 -469 5144 5526 -382 5987 

90 926 1379 -453 4156 4620 -464 4962 

January January 

10 1956 2156 -200 6883 7356 -473 9319 

50 1254 1633 -379 5395 5652 -257 6586 

90 927 1305 -378 4171 4559 -388 5034 

February February 

10 2004 2214 -210 7816 8292 -476 11610 

50 1555 1732 -177 5548 6001 -453 7557 

90 945 1306 -361 4174 4415 -241 4733 

March March 

10 2017 2323 -306 7873 8636 -763 10144 

50 1312 1612 -300 5170 5931 -761 6734 

90 969 1330 -361 4061 4748 -687 5063 

April April 

10 1459 1910 -451 6956 7583 -627 9378 

50 774 1206 -432 5090 5822 -732 6894 

90 564 799 -235 3900 4260 -360 4652 

May May 

10 766 1337 -571 5631 6213 -582 7511 

50 549 810 -261 4399 4734 -335 5954 

90 488 418 70 3707 3835 -128 4299 

June June 

10 868 1603 -735 5199 5759 -560 6809 

50 571 762 -191 4181 4231 -50 5091 

90 486 385 101 3749 3615 134 4282 

July July 

10 669 1123 -454 4863 5110 -247 5560 

50 525 574 -49 4212 4119 93 4745 90 474 352 122 3861 3716 145 4247 

August August 

10 682 1087 -405 4649 4778 -129 5190 

50 516 592 -76 4074 3963 111 4506 

90 474 361 113 3653 3474 179 4034 

September September 

10 870 1259 -389 4623 4755 -132 5185 

50 568 774 -206 4007 3999 8 4465 

90 496 480 16 3522 3432 90 3833 
Diversions due to 

Proposed Action 

(With Reclamation 

With Without minus Without 

 Reclamation Reclamation Reclamation) 

Oct 718 473 245 

Nov 132 126 6 

Dec 83 80 3 

Jan 82 82 0 

Feb 98 98 0 

Mar 137 111 26 

Apr 889 605 284 

May 1898 1375 523 

Jun 2201 1582 619 

Jul 2263 1622 641 

Aug 2057 1583 474 

Sep 1701 1300 401 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

6.2.2.1 Diversions Above the Deschutes River Below Bend Gage (DEBO) 

Although other diversions occur in the model, diversions from the Deschutes River above 

DEBO (RM 164.4) have the greatest influence on groundwater gains to the Lake Billy 

Chinook region. 

The median (50 percent exceedance) “with Reclamation” total diversion above DEBO is more 

than 2,260 cfs at the peak of the irrigation season. The proposed action comprises less than 

650 cfs of the total diversion. Modeled diversions above DEBO by month are shown in Table 

6-3. Reclamation’s proposed action comprises about 19 to 34 percent of the total diversions 

during the period from March to October. 

Table 6-3. Modeled Total Diversions from the Deschutes River 

above the “Deschutes River below Bend” Gage. 

(Values shown are the median B50% exceedance B of average monthly flows) 

6.2.2.2 Deschutes River Near Culver 

The Deschutes River Near Culver gage is located directly upstream from Lake Billy Chinook 

and downstream from Squaw Creek at RM 120.1. Modeled flows at this location are shown in 

Table 6-2. Median “without Reclamation” flows range from about 570 cfs in July to 1,750 cfs 

in November. The proposed action decreases median flows (at the 50 percent exceedance 

level) by 9 to 45 percent. Reductions to flow tend to be greatest from September through 

January and again in early spring (April and May). 

6-8 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

April through October 

Median “without Reclamation” flows range from about 570 to 810 cfs during May through 

September. The proposed action reduces median flows by less than 265 cfs in May, June, and 

September and insignificantly in July and August. The proposed action increases low flows (at 

the 90 percentile level) by about 70 to 120 cfs during May through August. These effects 

reflect the diverters' reliance on stored flows. This is reasonable, because even though 

Reclamation diversions above DEBO were about 640 cfs during the peak of the irrigation 

season (see the Section 6.2.2.1 “Diversions Above the Deschutes River Below Bend Gage”), 

most Reclamation diversions during that period are from stored water. The effects of 

groundwater gains from Reclamation diversions above DEBO increase the low flows near 

Culver. 

Median “without Reclamation” flows are about 1,200 cfs in April. The proposed action 

reduces April median flows by about 430 cfs due to the diversion and storage of natural flow. 

Similar conditions exist in October when median “without Reclamation” flows are about 1,400 

cfs and the proposed action reduces those flows by about 620 cfs. 

November through March 

Median “without Reclamation” flows for November through March are about 1,610 to 1,750 

cfs. The proposed action reduces these median flows by about 180 to 640 cfs, due to the 

storage of flows in Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs. These flow reductions include any 

groundwater gains from the Reclamation diversions above DEBO. 

6.2.2.3 Deschutes River Near Madras 

The Deschutes River Near Madras gage is located directly downstream from Lakes Billy 

Chinook and Simtustus at RM 100.1. Flows at this location include contributions from the 

Metolius and Crooked Rivers. Modeled flows at this location are shown in Table 6-2. Median 

“without Reclamation” flows range from about 3,960 cfs in August to 6,000 cfs in Februrary. 

In general the proposed action decreases median flows (at the 50 percent exceedance level) by 

5 to 13 percent during the October through May period. Insignificant decreases or increases in 

flow occur during the remaining months. 

April through October 

The median “without Reclamation” flows in April are about 5,820 cfs. The proposed action 

reduces these flows by about 730 cfs. The median “without Reclamation” flows in May are 

about 4,730 cfs. The proposed action reduces median May flows by about 340 cfs. Median 

“without Reclamation” flows June through September are about 3,960 to 4,230 cfs. The 

proposed action reduces median flows by about 50 cfs in June, increases median flows by 

about 90 to 110 cfs in July and August, and increases median flows insignificantly in 

September. The proposed action increases low flows (at the 90 percentile level) by about 90 to 

180 cfs in June through September. 

September 2003 Final 6-9 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The Deschutes River Near Madras gage reflects the regulation that was observed at the 

Deschutes River Near Culver location upstream. In addition, Prineville Reservoir often fills 

through April and sometimes May, reducing the contributions from the Crooked River. 

NUID's Crooked River pumps also contribute to flow reductions in April through June. The 

June through September effects indicate Reclamation diverters' reliance on stored water, in 

addition to the flow-increasing effects of groundwater gains from the Reclamation diversions 

above DEBO. 

Median “without Reclamation” October flows are about 4,590 cfs. The proposed action 

reduces these flows by about 390 cfs due to natural flow diversions and storage in Prineville 

Reservoir. 

November through March 

Median “without Reclamation” flows from November through March are about 5,200 to 6,000 

cfs. The proposed action reduces these flows by about 260 to 760 cfs due to the combined 

effects of storing flows in Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Prineville Reservoirs. These flow 

reductions also reflect any groundwater gains from the Reclamation diversions above DEBO. 

6.2.2.4 Deschutes River at Moody 

The Deschutes River at Moody gage is located at RM 1.4, at the mouth of the Deschutes River 

where it enters the Columbia River. Modeled flows at this location are shown in Table 6-2. 

Median “without Reclamation” flows range from about 4,360 cfs in August to 7,770 cfs in 

February. In general, the proposed action decreases median flows (at the 50 percent 

exceedance level) by 10 percent or less most months, with a short increase in flows in July and 

August. 

April through October 

Median “without Reclamation” flows in April, May, and October are about 5,160 to 7,400 cfs. 

The proposed action reduces these median flows by about 170 to 510 cfs. Median “without 

Reclamation” flows from June through September are about 4,360 to 5,150 cfs. The proposed 

action reduces median flows in June and September by about 55 cfs, and increases median 

flows in July and August by about 30 to 140 cfs. The proposed action increases low flows (at 

the 90 percentile level) by about 140 to 160 cfs in June through August. In addition to effects 

from Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Prineville Reservoirs, Reclamation’s effects at Moody reflect 

the activities of the Wapinitia Project in the White River subbasin. 

November through March 

Median “without Reclamation” flows for November through March are about 5,900 to 7,770 

cfs. The proposed action reduces these flows by about 210 to 760 cfs. These flow effects are 

due to filling Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Prineville Reservoirs and also reflect the flowincreasing effects of groundwater gains from the Reclamation diversions above DEBO. 

6-10 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.2.3 Summary 

Computer simulations were performed to evaluate the hydrologic effects of the proposed 

action. The results of these modeling studies for the Deschutes River Near Culver, Near 

Madras, and at Moody are summarized in Table 6-2. Additional hydrologic effect data is 

available in the MODSIM Simulation of Deschutes River Basin Projects Operations – 

Modeling Results CD ROM (Stillwater 2003). 

Modeling studies indicate that the greatest effect of the proposed action occurs during the 

irrigation season (April through October) at the Deschutes River Near Culver. Median 

“without Reclamation” flows for this period range from about 575 to 1,400 cfs. The proposed 

action reduces median “without Reclamation” flows by 9 percent to 45 percent. However in 

low flow years (90 percent exceedance level), the proposed action results in an increase of 17 

to 35 percent, contributing about 70 to 122 cfs in the May through August period. 

Downstream at the Deschutes River Near Madras, April through October median "without 

Reclamation" flows range from about 3,960 to 5,820 cfs. The proposed action reduces these 

median flows in April and October by less than 13 percent and alters May through September 

median flows insignificantly. "Without Reclamation" June through September low flows (at 

the 90 percent exceedance level) at the Deschutes River Near Madras range from about 3,430 

to 3,720 cfs. The proposed action increases these low flows insignificantly. At the Deschutes 

River at Moody, April through October median "without Reclamation" flows range from about 

4,360 to 7,410 cfs. The proposed action alters these median flows insignificantly. "Without 

Reclamtion" April through October low flows (at the 90 percent exceedance level) at this 

location range from about 3,830 to 5,030 cfs. The proposed action alters these low flows 

insignificantly. 

November through March median "without Reclamation" flows at the Deschutes River Near 

Culver range from about 1,610 to 1,750 cfs. The proposed action reduces these median flows 

by 10 percent to 36 percent due to reservoir storage. 

Downstream November through March median "without Reclamation" flows range from about 

5,210 to 6,000 cfs at the Deschutes River Near Madras and from about 5,900 to 7,770 at the 

Deschutes River at Moody. The proposed action reduces these median flows by less than 13 

percent, reflecting the influence of groundwater gains. 

6.3 BALD EAGLE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Reclamation analyzed possible effects of the annual operation and maintenance of Reclamation 

dams and reservoirs on both nesting and wintering bald eagles-- principally their primary prey 

base of fish and, to a lesser extent, waterfowl. Seasonal fluctuations in reservoir levels and 

alterations in streamflows below Reclamation dams were analyzed to evaluate the quantity and 

quality of prey population habitat, influence on prey health and abundance, and the ability of 

September 2003 Final 6-11 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

bald eagles to exploit available prey species, especially fish prey (by making prey more or less 

vulnerable to predation.) 

There are several overriding principles which should be kept in mind while assessing the 

effects of continued operation and maintenance activities at project reservoirs. 

1. Currently, the bald eagle population that inhabits these areas has been attracted to and 

has, at least in part, adapted to the conditions which have been and will continue to be 

present, i.e., fluctuating water levels which affect abundance and availability of prey. 

2. Annual fish stocking programs at project reservoirs have helped ameliorate the effects 

of reservoir fluctuations on fish prey. 

3. The bald eagle population in the Deschutes River basin and at project reservoirs has 

been a growing population over the last 30 years. This increase has occurred in spite of 

changes in annual and seasonal operation scenarios, responding to differing hydrologic 

conditions. 

4. The establishment of breeding areas at project reservoirs may be at or nearing carrying 

capacity due to territorial conflicts, paucity of suitable nesting trees, and/or other 

environmental factors (see baseline discussion in Chapter 5). 

The following analysis focuses on the potential effects from the “proposed action” which is 

continued operation and maintenance at Reclamation facilities in the Deschutes River basin. 

Since the growing bald eagle population has experienced and adapted to the existence of 

project reservoirs in the basin for the last 30 years, it is reasonable to establish the existence of 

reservoirs, i.e., historic and ongoing operations, as the baseline for the bald eagle. Evaluation 

was made of “proposed action” reservoir contents and streamflows in order to assess whether 

or not eagle foraging habitat and habitat conditions for prey populations change from baseline 

conditions as described in Chapter 5. Indirect effects are also discussed, as applicable. 

Analysis of hydrologic effects used modeled end-of-month reservoir elevations simulated in 

the “with Reclamation” scenario described earlier in this section. The model used historic 

water supply data for water years 1962 through 1999, but applied current operational criteria, 

including current irrigation demands. Although graphs contained in this chapter reference past 

water years, they do not represent the actual operations for those years, but rather an indication 

of potential reservoir operations for water supply situations similar to past water years. This 

approach simulates the range of end-of-month reservoir elevations that may occur in the future. 

6.3.1 Upper Deschutes Subbasin Effects Analysis 

Reservoir storage under the proposed action would continue to vary considerably from year-toyear and season-to-season, depending on the water supply and demand for irrigation 

withdrawals. 

6-12 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.3.1.1 Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs 

Crane Praire Reservoir 

The environmental baseline discussion assumed that the average 23,000 acre-feet end-ofOctober carryover may be a critical level for sustaining a productive reservoir fishery. Figure 

6-1, illustrating the modeled reservoir storage elevations under the proposed action, indicates 

that the reservoir may be drawn down to or below this volume about 66 percent of the years. 

Figure 6-2, an exceedance curve for end-of-October reservoir elevations, indicates the 

reservoir would be at or above 23,000 acre-feet by the end of the irrigation season about 46 

percent of the time. However, the reservoir would be at or above 22,000 acre-feet about 70 

percent of the time. 

Figure 6-1. Crane Prairie Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action 

September 2003 Final 6-13 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 6-2. Crane Prairie Reservoir Storage End-of-October – Proposed 

Action Exceedance Curves 

Wickiup Reservoir 

As described in the environmental baseline discussion, when Wickiup Reservoir storage drops 

below 40,000 acre-feet, fish become concentrated in the Deschutes River channel of the 

reservoir and fish loss through the outlet increases (Fies et al. 1996a). Figure 6-3 indicates the 

reservoir would be drawn down to or below 40,000 acre-feet 32 percent of the years. 

However, end-of-October storage under the proposed action would be at or above 40,000 acrefeet about 81 percent of the time at the end of the irrigation season (Figure 6-4). At the 50 

percent exceedance level, Wickiup Reservoir storage would be at or above 100,000 acre-feet at 

the end of October. 

Effects on Foraging Habitat and Prey Base - The preceding analysis shows that the Crane 

Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs content would continue to fluctuate seasonally and annually 

dependent on the water supply and demand, as has been the case historically. 

6-14 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

As described in Chapter 3, Crane Prairie Reservoir levels and content have been substantially 

improved since Reclamation’s rehabilitation of the dam in 1940. It has also operated with less 

variability and at higher minimum elevations since the coordinated operation with Wickiup 

Reservoir began in 1949. After 1970, annual fluctuations of Wickiup Reservoir have been 

more uniform and generally not drawn down as low as compared to pre-1970 data. These 

operational changes have improved the quality of the aquatic habitat for the reservoir fish 

populations, both resident and stocked, and have reduced the entrainment through Wickiup 

Dam. 

Overall, continued operations at the reservoirs would not significantly change the habitat 

conditions for fish and waterfowl prey populations at the reservoirs from the environmental 

baseline. Continued fish stocking programs at the reservoirs would continue to help ameliorate 

the effects of reduced reservoir levels during low water years. Maintenance of the fish prey 

population, in particular, in the reservoirs would result in continued foraging success for bald 

eagles; although, there would continue to be fluctuations in the quantity and quality of aquatic 

habitat and dependent prey populations. Competition between eagles and other piscivorous 

birds ( i.e., cormorants and ospreys) for fish prey, would continue. 

Effects on Nesting Bald Eagles B The increasing year-round bald eagle use in close proximity 

to Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs (i.e., increased from 5 known breeding areas to 17 

over a 30-year period in addition to occasional wintering birds) is an indication that a suitable 

prey base and other habitat requirements have been met historically at the reservoirs, and is not 

expected to change significantly. 

September 2003 Final 6-15 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 6-3. Wickiup Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action 

Figure 6-4. Wickiup Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed Action 

Exceedance Curves 

6-16 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

The potential relationship of project reservoir operations to bald eagle nesting success can be 

evaluated by examining the hydrologic conditions at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs and 

the corresponding bald eagle nesting success of the last 30 years. The general trend has been 

an increase in breeding pairs with a corresponding increase in the production of young. 

However, there has been a great deal of fluctuation in these numbers (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2) 

which cannot necessarily be explained in relationship to reservoir hydrologic cycles, with 

possibly one exception: 

During the 1979-1981 historic period, Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs levels 

were drawn down to very low levels for three years in a row (Figures 3-2 and 3-7). 

The apparent result was an abrupt drop in the number of young eagles produced 

during the subsequent two nesting periods (1982 & 1983--See Table 5.1 & Fig. 5.2). 

This occurred even though the number of occupied breeding areas remained fairly 

constant. The effect was most apparent at Crane Prairie Reservoir, where there were 

no young produced during the two-year period following the 1979-81 drawdown years. 

Examination of climatic conditions (precipitation and temperature) for the 1982 

breeding and nesting seasons indicated that there was above average precipitation 

during the May through July period, but that temperatures were near average. The 

question here would be whether or not these or other environmental factors also had an 

effect on the production of young. However, looking at the State of Oregon nesting 

record for 1982, it shows a general decrease in the average productivity of nesting 

pairs per occupied site--possibly indicating a general decline responding to widespread 

drought conditions in previous years (Isaacs and Anthony 2002). 

The number of breeding pairs which occupy nesting territories in the vicinity of Crane Prairie 

and Wickiup Reservoirs would be expected to continue to fluctuate annually with the proposed 

action, as under past operations. There may be some increases in numbers, depending on the 

suitability of environmental factors in addition to continued reservoir operations. Any possible 

increase in the number of occupied breeding territories under the proposed action would also 

depend on a number of factors, i.e., varying environmental conditions, competition for space, 

and availability of suitable nesting trees. Review of nesting data (Table 5-1) over the last 9 

years indicate that the opportunity for establishing new breeding areas (nesting territories) at 

the reservoirs may be reaching carrying capacity. At Crane Prairie Reservoir, seven breeding 

areas were recorded in 1994 and increased by only one by the year 2000. At Wickiup 

Reservoir, there were eight recorded breeding areas as early as 1981, increasing by only one 

breeding area by 2001. 

September 2003 Final 6-17 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

While it is uncertain as to whether the number of breeding areas may or may not increase under 

the proposed action, the continued operation of the reservoirs–resulting in a sustained prey 

base–would be expected to maintain the historic success of breeding pairs. The result may be 

at sustained or even higher numbers of occupied breeding territories (again dependent on 

competitive factors and annual environmental conditions) and continued success in raising and 

fledging young. 

Effects on Wintering Bald Eagles BDuring severe winter months, when the lakes are mostly 

iced over, it is unlikely that the proposed action would have any differing effects on bald eagle 

habitat or food supply. Eagles often reside at the reservoirs until well into, or through, the 

winter months, feeding on wintering concentrations of waterfowl. 

Early in the spring and sometimes in mild winters (i.e., at Wickiup Reservoir), ice either does 

not form or begins to recede at stream inlets to the reservoirs leaving small areas of open water. 

Waterfowl concentrate at these open water areas creating a ready source of food for the eagles. 

During this time, the proposed action would have little change on foraging opportunities from 

historic conditions. 

This area also contains suitable perching and roosting sites nearby with little or no significant 

human disturbance in winter. These conditions would not change under the proposed action. 

Other Effects BDisturbances to nesting activities in summer, due to recreational use of the 

reservoirs and adjacent landscapes, will continue to be a management concern under the 

proposed action, as has been the case historically. The USFS has addressed these concerns, as 

the authorized land manager, by establishing Bald Eagle Management Plans for all but the 

most recently recorded breeding areas at the reservoirs. Possibly more could be done to reduce 

disturbance effects on nesting eagles if some bays were restricted from access during the eagle 

nesting period (Dillon 2002). However, this would have to be a USFS action. Reclamation 

has no jurisdiction over recreation management on the reservoirs. 

Routine operation and maintenance activities at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams would not 

result in disturbance or alteration of nesting, perching, or roosting sites. All routine activities 

would be concentrated at the dam locations and should have no disturbing effects on nesting or 

foraging eagles. If extraordinary maintenance activities requiring significant amounts of 

construction are proposed in the future, each would have to be assessed separately to determine 

potential disturbing effects, especially on eagle breeding and nesting success at nearby nest 

location, e.g., the nest site immediately downstream of Wickiup Dam.1

1

 The 2002 nesting activity at this sight was apparently adversely affected by ongoing construction activities 

associated with the Safety of Dams program. These activities were the subject of a separate Section 7 ESA 

consultation. 

6-18 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.3.1.2 Deschutes River Below Project Reservoirs 

Under the proposed action, the flows of the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam would 

continue to vary considerably from year-to-year and season-to-season depending on the water 

supply and demands for irrigation (Figure 3-8). Maximum and minimum releases and overall 

flow patterns would be similar to conditions in the most recent past. 

Any proposed action effects on bald eagles would be due primarily to continued fluctuating 

flow patterns and their effect on Deschutes River fish populations. However, according to 

Marx (2002) there are few issues associated with these flows relative to the availability of a 

food source for wintering eagles, i.e., there appears to be a sustained prey base (fish and 

waterfowl) in most years. During ice-over conditions, wintering birds move to lower 

elevations in the basin to roost and feed. 

The three breeding areas on the upper Deschutes River have been established since 1990. The 

breeding pairs which utilize these areas are possibly year-long residents and rely on the 

Deschutes River fish and waterfowl populations as a main source of food. During the bald 

eagle nesting season, the riverine environment plus surrounding prey habitat appear to have 

provided a relatively stable prey base for the nesting eagles in recent years and would continue 

to do so under the proposed action. Fluctuations in breeding and fledging success and in 

numbers of wintering eagles along the river would be expected to continue as in the past. 

6.3.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin Effects Analysis 

Bald eagles nesting and wintering in the middle Deschutes River area are not affected by 

Reclamation project O&M activities. They are mostly influenced by operation of the PeltonRound Butte Project reservoirs (i.e., Lake Billy Chinook) which, along with westside 

tributaries, provide abundant food sources for nesting and wintering eagles as described in 

Chapter 5. Nesting opportunities would continue to be limited by the paucity of suitable 

nesting trees. 

6.3.3 Crooked River Subbasin Effects Analysis 

The reservoir storage content at Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs under the proposed action 

would continue to vary considerably from year-to-year and season-to-season depending on the 

water supply and irrigation demands. 

September 2003 Final 6-19 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

6.3.3.1 Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs 

Figure 6-5 depicts the simulated end-of-month Prineville Reservoir storage for the proposed 

action. As described in the environmental baseline discussion, the average end-of-October 

carryover storage in Prineville Reservoir has been about 83,000 acre-feet, dipping below this 

level in only extreme drought years. Under the proposed action, end-of-October storage (end 

of irrigation season) would be expected to be at or above 83,000 acre-feet about 68 percent of 

the time (Figure 6-6). 

The hydrological analysis for Ochoco Reservoir is important to the bald eagle effects analysis 

as it relates to winter forage habitat provided by a facility that is operationally interrelated and 

interdependently with Reclamation operations. Figure 6-7 depicts the simulated end-of-month 

storage for the proposed action. Overall fluctuations in Ochoco Reservoir elevations and 

content would continue as in the past. Historically, Ochoco Reservoir’s average end-ofOctober carryover storage is 14, 750 acre-feet. Under the proposed action, the reservoir would 

be at or above this historic average carryover, about 73 percent of the time (Figure 6-8). The 

overall winter condition of the reservoir would not change significantly from past operations. 

Ochoco Reservoir has been held at higher elevations since the construction of Bowman Dam, 

because of coordinated operations. 

Figure 6-5. Prineville Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action 

6-20 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Figure 6-6. Prineville Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed 

Action Exceedance Curve 

Figure 6-7. Ochoco Reservoir End-of-Month Storage – Proposed Action 

September 2003 Final 6-21 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Figure 6-8. Ochoco Reservoir End-of-October Storage – Proposed 

Action Exceedance Curve 

Effects on Foraging Habitat and Prey Base B The preceding analysis shows that under the 

proposed action there would remain a sizeable carryover content at Prineville Reservoir, as has 

been historically; and extreme drawdowns would be avoided. It is expected that the quality and 

quantity of the aquatic habitat for the reservoir fish populations, both resident and stocked, would 

be maintained at historical conditions. However, there would continue to be fluctuations in the 

quantity and quality of aquatic habitat and dependent prey populations. 

Maintained conditions for fish prey population in the reservoir would probably have no 

significant change on the foraging success for the single resident breeding pair of bald eagles at 

Prineville Reservoir. Prey would remain readily available to these birds and to any new breeding 

pairs that may be able to find a suitable nesting site near the reservoir--although, as described 

under baseline conditions, suitable nesting trees are in short supply and the resident pair is 

extremely territorial. 

Unchanged winter carryover conditions at Ochoco Reservoir would maintain the winter fishery 

and waterfowl prey base in the reservoir at current levels. 

6-22 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Effects on Nesting Eagles B Based on the foregoing, Prineville Reservoir would continue to be 

operated in a similar manner as it has been historically. Future bald eagle nesting success would 

respond to a continuation of similar environmental factors along with available prey. 

Effects on Wintering Eagles B During severe winter months, when the reservoirs are mostly iced 

over, it is unlikely that the proposed action would have any effects on bald eagle habitat or food 

supply. But at these lower elevation reservoirs, eagles often reside well into, or through, the 

winter months, feeding on wintering concentrations of waterfowl and fish at the reservoirs and/or 

upland carrion on adjacent lands. 

During this time, the proposed action would have little change on foraging opportunities from 

historic conditions, because reservoir fisheries and waterfowl, and their availability as exploitable 

prey, would not significantly change from historic conditions. 

This area also contains suitable perching and roosting sites nearby with little or no significant 

human disturbance in winter. These conditions would not change under the proposed action. 

Other Effects B Disturbances to nesting activities in summer, due to recreational use of the 

reservoirs and adjacent landscapes, has not been perceived as an issue at Prineville Reservoir in 

the past. Nesting sites are extremely limited by the availability of suitable nesting trees. If the 

resident pair or other eagles nest in closer proximity to the reservoir, as attempted in 2002, then 

conflicts with recreation use could occur. This could happen with or without implementation of 

the proposed action. Reclamation would continue to work with other agencies to minimize 

effects on recreation use on bald eagle breeding and nesting activities at Prineville Reservoir. 

Routine operation and maintenance activities at Bowman Dam (Prineville Reservoir) and Ochoco 

Dam would not result in disturbance or alteration of nesting, perching, or roosting sites of 

breeding, nesting, or wintering bald eagles. All routine activities would be concentrated at the 

dam locations and should have no disturbing effects on nesting or foraging eagles. If 

extraordinary maintenance activities requiring significant amounts of construction are proposed in 

the future, each would have to be assessed separately to determine potential disturbing effects, 

especially on eagle foraging activities. At present there are no nest sites in the near vicinity of the 

dams. 

6.3.3.2 Crooked River Below Bowman Dam 

Under the proposed action, Crooked River flows below Bowman Dam would continue to vary 

considerably from year-to-year and season-to-season depending on the water year and on 

withdrawals for irrigation (Figure 3-25). Releases and overall flow patterns would not change 

significantly from recent past historic conditions. Minimum releases to sustain downstream 

fisheries (provided since 1990) would remain in effect. 

September 2003 Final 6-23 –
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Any effect of the proposed action on bald eagles would be due primarily to the continued 

fluctuating flow patterns and their effect on Crooked River fish populations. It is expected that 

continued release of minimum winter flows (as described in Chapter 2) would continue to sustain 

a healthy fishery below the dam during the nonirrigation season. This along with upland carrion 

sources would continue to provide a sustained foraging base for the bald eagles which winter 

along the river corridor. 

6.3.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin Effects Analysis 

6.3.4.1 Clear Lake 

It is not known how operations at Clear Lake may affect the nesting success of the Clear Lake 

nesting territory. There is evidence that the eagles have been in the area for years, but monitoring 

of nesting activity began only about 6 years ago. Since then, there has been recorded nesting 

success in only the last 2 years. Fish resources are limited at Clear Lake, but there appears to be 

adequate foraging areas when considering all of the lake and stream fisheries in the general area. 

These conditions would not change with the proposed action. Clear Lake would continue to be 

operated in the same manner as it has been historically and future bald eagle nesting success 

would respond to a continuation of similar environmental factors. 

6.3.4.2 Lower Deschutes River 

This reach of the Deschutes River below Lake Billy Chinook would continue to support an 

abundance of waterfowl and fish prey. Bald eagle nesting would continue to be limited by the 

paucity of suitable nesting trees. Year-round bald eagle use (one nesting territory actually near 

the river and significant numbers of wintering eagles) of the lower Deschutes and tributaries is an 

indication that a sustained prey base (i.e., fish resources along with waterfowl and winter-killed 

big game) and other habitat features (i.e., suitable perching and roosting sites) are, and will 

continue to be, available. The bald eagle prey base in the lower river and tributaries is not likely 

to be adversely affected under the proposed action. Streamflows and dependent prey populations 

are generally adequate in the lower river and will remain so under the proposed action. 

6.3.5 Summary of Effects 

Based on the previous analysis and the fact that there has been and continues to be a growing 

bald eagle population in the Deschutes River basin, it is Reclamation’s conclusion that overall the 

proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the breeding, nesting, or 

wintering success of bald eagles in the Deschutes and Crooked River subbasins. 

6-24 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.3.5.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin 

• The number of breeding pairs which occupy nesting territories in the vicinity of Crane 

Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs would be expected to continue to fluctuate annually with 

the proposed action, as under past operations. There may be some changes in numbers, 

depending on the suitability of environmental factors in addition to reservoir level 

fluctuations. Such changes have been the case in the recent past with the growing eagle 

population. [May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect] 

• While the number of breeding areas may or may not increase under the proposed action, it 

is expected that breeding success would continue to fluctuate as in the past. 

 [May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect] 

• Success of breeding pairs downstream of Wickiup Dam would be likely to remain about 

the same as historically. [No Effect] 

• Conditions for winter eagles would probably not change significantly. [No Effect] 

• Routine operation and maintenance activities at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Dams would 

not result in disturbance or alteration of nesting, perching, or roosting sites. 

 [No Effect] 

6.3.5.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin 

• Bald eagles nesting and wintering in the middle Deschutes River area are not affected by 

Reclamation project O&M activities. [No Effect] 

6.3.5.3 Crooked River Subbasin 

• The proposed action would have little change on foraging opportunities from historic 

conditions at Prineville Reservoir because reservoir fisheries and their availability as 

exploitable prey will continue to be more than adequate for the resident breeding pair and 

wintering eagles. [No Effect] 

• Routine operation and maintenance activities at Bowman Dam (Prineville Reservoir) and 

Ochoco Dam would not result in disturbance or alteration of nesting, perching, or roosting 

sites of breeding, nesting, or wintering bald eagles. [No Effect] 

• It is expected that the commitment to providing minimum winter flows would continue to 

sustain a healthy fishery in the Crooked River below Bowman Dam during the 

nonirrigation season. This along with upland carrion sources would continue to provide a 

sustained foraging base for the bald eagles which winter along the river corridor. 

 [No Effect] 

September 2003 Final – 6-25 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

• Winter carryover conditions at Ochoco Reservoir would remain unchanged. The winter 

fishery prey base in the reservoir would not change significantly. [No Effect] 

6.3.5.4 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin 

• Clear Lake would continue to be operated in the same manner as it has been historically 

and future bald eagle nesting success would respond to a continuation of similar 

environmental factors. [No Effect] 

• The bald eagle prey base in the lower river and tributaries is not likely to be adversely 

affected under the proposed action. Streamflows and dependent prey populations are 

generally adequate in the lower river and will remain so under the proposed action. 

 [May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect] 

6.4 BULL TROUT

6.4.1 Upper Deschutes River Subbasin 

6.4.1.1 Effects Analysis 

Operation of project facilities at Crane Prairie Reservoir, Wickiup Reservoir, and diversion 

facilities downstream would have no effect on bull trout in the upper Deschutes subbasin since 

there are no longer any known bull trout populations in these reservoirs nor in the tributary 

streams above or immediately below the reservoirs. 

6.4.2 Middle Deschutes River Subbasin 

6.4.2.1 Effects Analysis 

Effects of flow alterations resulting from the operation of Reclamation facilities of the Deschutes 

and Crooked River Projects and private facilities reduce inflows to the middle Deschutes River. 

Diversions related to the Deschutes Project and other private diversions have severely affected 

streamflow and water quality in the 33 stream miles from Bend downstream to Big Falls. Water 

quality and spatial habitat is severely depleted through this reach (Marx 2000). Downstream from 

Bend, large spring inflows (from irrigation groundwater recharge) restore or replace a significant 

amount of the water that is stored or diverted upstream. 

Historic hydrologic analysis (Chapter 3) and hydrologic modeling of flows in the Deschutes River 

basin (Section 6.2) were conducted by Reclamation and described earlier. The hydrological 

model calculated daily mean streamflows on a monthly basis for two hydrologic scenarios (with 

Reclamation projects operating, and those expected if the proposed action were removed.) This 

provided the information to illustrate percent exceedance curves for the USGS streamflow gage 

near Culver, Oregon, just upstream from Lake Billy Chinook. Table 6-4 shows modeled 50 

6-26 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

percent exceedances for each month for the Culver gage under the “with Reclamation” and 

“without Reclamation” conditions, and the percent difference in the streamflow for these two 

modeled simulations. Table 6-4 shows that there is a reduction in modeled downstream flow 

attributable to Reclamation operations for 12 months of the year at the Culver gage at the 50 

percent exceedance level. Generally, these modeled flow changes reflect periods when 

Reclamation, under the proposed action, is storing or releasing water. These seasonal reductions 

in flow may contribute to reduced water quality conditions in the mainstem middle Deschutes 

River from the city of Bend downstream to Big Falls. Non-Federal water storage and diversion 

facilities similarly contribute to a net reduction in flows, due to the complex hydrology of the 

basin. 

According to modeling results, storage of Reclamation project water along with any private 

storage have decreased winter streamflows. Diversion of natural flows has decreased flows 

during the irrigation season. Even so, spring inflows to the Deschutes River upstream from Lake 

Billy Chinook help ameliorate the effects of project caused flow reductions in the river and dilute 

potential nutrients and agricultural chemicals contained in irrigation return flows. Flows and 

water quality in this lower reach of the middle Deschutes River appear to be adequate, even 

during drought years, as evidenced by use of bull trout as far upstream as Big Falls, a natural 

barrier, and also provide bull trout access to lower Squaw Creek. The State of Oregon instream 

flow recommendations of 250 cfs year round are also met in this reach where bull trout occur 

(Marx 2003). 

Table 6-4. Modeled Daily 50 Percent Exceedances for Streamflow 

in the Middle Deschutes River Near Culver, OR, (by month, in cfs) 

Culver, OR Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

With 1254 1555 1312 774 549 571 525 516 568 774 1116 1252 

Reclamation 

Without 1633 1732 1612 1206 810 762 574 592 774 1396 1751 1721 

Reclamation 

% ∆ Q -23.2 -10.2 -18.6 -35.8 -32.2 -25.1 -8.5 -12.8 -26.6 -44.6 -36.3 -27.3 

Reclamation has been actively working with the DRC to fund and carry out several water 

conservation projects in Squaw Creek, Crooked River, and the Deschutes River to improve 

habitat and flows for bull trout, resident fish, and potentially for future reintroduction of 

anadromous fish. Other conservation projects have improved flows and water quality of Tumalo 

Creek and the middle reach of the Deschutes River. 

September 2003 Final 6-27 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Storage and diversion of flows on the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers do not significantly affect 

the levels of Lake Billy Chinook as this is a run-of-the-river operation. Operation of the PeltonRound Butte Hydroelectric Project has the major influence on water quantity in Lake Billy 

Chinook and its tributary arms. Minor daily fluctuations help sustain lake levels to the benefit of 

bull trout by minimizing entrainment of kokanee and zooplankton. Even with the winter season 

drawdown of the lake for flood control, there appears to be adequate water surface and volume to 

provide for the increasing bull trout population in Lake Billy Chinook. 

Return flows from irrigated project lands add nutrients, bacteria, and agricultural chemicals into 

Lake Billy Chinook via the Deschutes and Crooked River inflows. While these pollutants are 

diluted by large spring inflows, they do reduce the overall water quality of the lake, which is 

generally good, but which experiences seasonal algal blooms. However, there is no indication to 

date that water quality of Lake Billy Chinook is adversely affecting bull trout populations in the 

lake. 

Overall, these project and nonproject influences, especially in the lower reaches of the middle 

Deschutes River basin, likely do not negatively influence adult and subadult bull trout. 

6.4.2.2 Effects Conclusion 

Reclamation project operations have no effect on the Metolius River subbasin spawning, rearing, 

and fluvial habitats of bull trout because there are no Reclamation facilities in the Metolius River 

nor its tributaries. Project operations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect bull trout 

from Lake Billy Chinook upstream to Big Falls in the Deschutes River. 

Reclamation does not anticipate any incidental take of bull trout in the middle Deschutes River 

associated with the continued operation of Reclamation facilities. 

6.4.3 Lower Deschutes River Subbasin 

6.4.3.1 Effects Analysis 

Hydrologic modeling of flows in the Deschutes River basin was conducted by Reclamation and is 

described in Section 6.2. The model calculated a hydrologic baseline with Reclamation’s 

proposed action and without its proposed action for daily mean flows on a monthly basis, and 

provided the information to illustrate percent exceedance curves for the USGS streamflow gage 

near Madras, Oregon just downstream from Pelton Reregulating Dam. Table 6-5 shows modeled 

50 percent exceedances by month for “with Reclamation” and “without Reclamation” conditions 

and the percent difference in the streamflow near Madras. 

6-28 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Table 6-5. Modeled Daily 50 Percent Exceedances for Streamflow in the Lower Deschutes 

River Near Madras and at Moody, OR. (by month, in cfs) 

Madras, OR Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

With 5395 5548 5070 5090 4399 4181 4212 4074 4007 4201 4635 5144 

Reclamation 

Without 5652 6001 5931 5822 4734 4231 4119 3963 3999 4593 5208 5526 

Reclamation 

% ∆ Q -4.5 -7.5 -14.5 -12.6 -7.1 -1.2 +2.3 +2.8 +0.2 -8.5 -11.0 -6.9 

Moody, OR 

With 6586 7557 6734 6894 5954 5091 4745 4506 4465 4742 5454 5987 

Reclamation 

Without 6996 7769 7491 7408 6120 5148 4714 4362 4518 5155 5904 6421 

Reclamation 

% ∆ Q -5.9 -2.7 -10.1 -6.9 -2.7 -1.1 +0.7 +3.3 -1.2 -8.0 -7.6 -6.8 

The proposed action reduces modeled streamflows at the Madras gage for 9 months of the year, 

except for July, August, and September. During July, August, and September, the proposed 

action increases modeled streamflows slightly. At the 50 percent exceedance level, the decrease 

in modeled flows under the proposed action ranges from 1.2 to 14.5 percent for these 9 months, 

and is greater than 10 percent in November, March and April. The increase in modeled flow 

during these months ranges from 0.2 percent to 2.8 percent. 

Generally, these modeled flow changes reflect periods when Reclamation, under the proposed 

action, is storing or releasing water. These seasonal reductions in flow coupled with increased air 

temperature and other variables, may contribute to reduced water quality conditions (e.g., 

increased water temperatures) in the mainstem lower Deschutes River. Non-Federal water 

storage and diversion facilities have similarly contributed to a net reduction in flows, due to the 

complex hydrology of the basin. Modeled results indicate storage of project water along with any 

private storage decrease winter streamflows. Diversion of natural flows decreases flows during 

the irrigation season. Even so, flows in the lower Deschutes River are remarkably uniform and 

stable (Fassnacht et al. 2002), and in most cases the modeled change in flow is within the general 

accepted accuracy range of streamflow gages, i.e., about 10 percent. 

Project operation and maintenance activities have no effect on bull trout spawning tributaries in 

the lower Deschutes River subbasin mentioned above. Flows and water quality in the lower 

Deschutes River are primarily driven by the operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex and 

partially ameliorated by downstream surface and groundwater inflows. Natural warming of the 

river as it flows downstream is also a factor, especially in the summer months, when flows are 

somewhat reduced. Overall, these project and nonproject influences, especially warmer water 

temperatures in the lower Deschutes River downstream of Madras, may influence fluvial bull 

trout. However, the timing of these warmer water temperatures is typically when lower 

Deschutes River adult fluvial bull trout are in tributary streams that provide cooler water. 

September 2003 Final 6-29 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Therefore, the impacts, if any, would be minimal to adult bull trout. Impacts to subadult bull 

trout in the lower Deschutes River are unknown. However, any potential impacts are likely 

minimal based on an estimated increase in bull trout spawning populations for Shitike Creek and 

the Warm Springs River, plus the ability of bull trout to seek out suitable habitat. 

Reclamation has been actively working with DRC to fund and carry out conservation projects in 

the Warm Springs River, Trout Creek, Mack’s Canyon, and other subbasins of the lower 

Deschutes River to improve water quality, habitat, and flows for resident and anadromous fish. 

Bull trout are not found in the White River subbasin (possibly because of the natural turbidity of 

the river caused from the suspension of glacial flour; natural barrier in the lower river; and 

warmer waters of the lower river); therefore, bull trout are not influenced by operation of Wasco 

Dam and Reservoir on Clear Creek, an upper tributary of the White River. 

6.4.3.2 Effects Conclusion 

Reclamation project operations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect bull trout in the 

lower Deschutes River. Reclamation does not anticipate any incidental take of bull trout in the 

lower Deschutes River associated with the continued operation of Reclamation facilities. 

6.4.4 Crooked River Subbasin 

6.4.4.1 Effects Analysis 

Operation of project facilities at Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs would have no effect on 

existing bull trout populations; only the lower Crooked River below Opal Springs Dam supports 

wandering Metolius basin bull trout in the lower Crooked River subbasin. See the analysis in 

Section 6.4.2 “Middle Deschutes River Subbasin” for a description of effects on bull trout in the 

lower few miles of the Crooked River and in the Crooked River arm of Lake Billy Chinook. 

Unknown numbers of bull trout are found in the lower Crooked River, from Lake Billy Chinook 

to Opal Springs Dam that are a component of the Metolius River bull trout population. 

According to Gannett (2001), groundwater discharge of over 1,000 cfs occurs in this reach, 

providing suitable rearing habitat for Lake Billy Chinook bull trout. This groundwater discharge 

into the lower Crooked River results in instream flows that exceed State of Oregon instream flow 

recommendations from Opal Springs to Lake Billy Chinook. 

Reclamation has partnered with DRC and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to provide 

funding for conservation projects in the Crooked River subbasin to improve water quality and 

habitat, and has constructed new fish screen facilities at the Crooked River Project main diversion 

facility. 

6-30 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.4.4.2 Effects Conclusion 

Reclamation project operations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect bull trout in the 

Crooked River. 

Reclamation does not anticipate any incidental take of bull trout in the Crooked River associated 

with the continued operation of Reclamation facilities. 

6.5 MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD

6.5.1 Effects Analysis 

Historic hydrologic conditions are described and hydrologic modeling of streamflows in the 

Deschutes River basin were conducted by Reclamation (see Chapter 3 and Section 6.2, 

respectively). The hydrologic model calculated daily mean streamflows on a monthly basis with 

Reclamation projects operating and without Reclamation. This information was used to produce 

percent exceedance curves for streamflow near Madras, Oregon, just downstream from Pelton 

Reregulating Dam, and at Moody, Oregon. Table 6-5 shows modeled 50 percent exceedances for 

each month near Madras and at Moody for the “with Reclamation” and the “without 

Reclamation” modeled scenarios, and the percent difference in the streamflow at those locations. 

Table 6-5 shows that Reclamation’s proposed action reduces modeled downstream flow for 9 

months of the year at the Madras gage and for 10 months of the year at Moody. 

The proposed action reduces modeled streamflows near Madras for 9 months of the year, except 

for July, August, and September. At the 50 percent exceedance level, the proposed action 

decreases modeled flows near Madras ranging from 1.2 to 14.5 percent and are greater than 10 

percent in November, March, and April, with an average 8.2 percent decrease for the 9-month 

period. During July, August, and September, the proposed action increases modeled streamflows 

slightly. Increased modeled flows near Madras range from 0.2 to 2.8 percent for these 3 months. 

Generally, these modeled flow changes reflect periods when Reclamation, under the proposed 

action, is storing or releasing water. These seasonal reductions in flow may contribute to reduced 

water quality conditions in the mainstem lower Deschutes River, but the reductions generally 

occur during periods when ambient air temperatures are less likely to adversely affect water 

temperatures. However, as shown in Table 5-12, weekly water temperatures for a 17-year period 

are lower than the ODEQ water temperature criterion for salmonid fish rearing. Non-Federal 

water storage and diversion facilities similarly contribute to a net reduction in flows, which 

generally follow the same seasonal scenario of storing and releasing water. 

September 2003 Final 6-31 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Modeled hydrologic results indicate storage of Reclamation project water decreases winter 

streamflows. Diversion of natural flows decreases river flows during the irrigation season. Even 

so, flows in the lower Deschutes River are remarkably uniform and stable (Fassnacht et al. 2002), 

and in most cases the modeled change in flow is within the generally accepted accuracy range of 

streamflow gages, i.e., about 10 percent. Table 5-3 of historic flows shows that the average endof-month streamflow for the period 1990-2001 meet or exceed the recommended instream flows. 

Table 6-5 depicting modeled streamflows under “with Reclamation” and “without Reclamation” 

conditions, indicates recommended instream flows are met or exceeded at the 50 percent 

exceedance levels. 

Project operation and maintenance activities have no effect on the steelhead spawning tributaries 

in the lower Deschutes River subbasin mentioned above since no Reclamation projects occur 

there, with the possible exception of the White River. However, steelhead spawning and rearing 

in this short 2-mile reach of river below the 150-foot-high falls has not been documented by 

ODFW (Pribyl 2002). Flows and water quality in the lower Deschutes River are modified and 

controlled in large part by the operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project and are 

partially ameliorated by downstream surface and cooler groundwater inflows. Natural warming 

of the river as it flows downstream occurs, especially in the summer months when flows are 

somewhat reduced (Aney et al. 1967), but this is not a result of Reclamation operations. 

The Wapinitia Project on Clear Creek, a tributary of the White River, utilizes Wasco Dam for 

storage of some irrigation water. The project has natural flow water rights that are supplemented 

by water from Clear Lake. During winter nonirrigation months, storage is accruing to Clear Lake 

and flows in the White River and to the Deschutes River are reduced by a maximum of 102 cfs in 

February. During the irrigation season, there is an average increase of 6 cfs to the Deschutes 

River flow (Appendix C). 

Streamflow gages in the lower Deschutes River were installed only near Madras and at Moody. 

Modeled exceedance values near Madras and at Moody indicate flows are at least 3,100 cfs and 

3,500 cfs, respectively. The calculated increase of 6 cfs to the Deschutes River from the White 

River is about 0.2 percent of the flow measured at Madras and is negligible. Change in flow in 

the lower Deschutes River attributable to the Wapinitia Project and storage in Wasco Dam is 

barely measurable, and within the range of accuracy of streamflow gages. Over time, return 

flows offset some of the water diverted upstream. However, the additional non-Federal upstream 

agricultural diversions could affect flows during the 1 May to 1 October irrigation season. Data 

are unavailable to determine the extent of any affect from non-Federal irrigation. But despite 

these unquantifiable effects on flow in the White River, there is still substantial flow in the lower 

Deschutes River as indicated by streamflow measurements at the USGS Moody gage (Table 5-3). 

6-32 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

ODFW has not documented use of the lower 2-mile reach of the White River by steelhead. The 

water quality of this 2-mile reach of river is affected by the natural turbidity of the river caused by 

the suspension of glacial flour, some sediments carried into the river by agricultural return flows, 

and naturally warming conditions. The White River below Lower Falls is listed as exceeding the 

water temperature criterion of 64°F (17.8°C) for anadromous salmonids for 100, 58, and 72 days 

in 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. The White River at the National Forest boundary 

exceeded the 64EF (17.8EC) water temperature criterion for 45 and 3 days in 1992 and 1994, 

respectively. Clear Creek, at a USFS site at Road 42, exceeded the water temperature criterion 

for an unspecified length of time in 1995 (Oregon’s Final 2002 303(d) List; 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/WQLData/View303dList02.asp). Reclamation has been working 

with the JFDIC to improve irrigation efficiencies, reduce return flows, and improve water quality 

on Wapinitia Project lands. The trend toward sprinkler irrigation in the basin will improve 

efficiency and help reduce water quality effects of agricultural practices. 

Reclamation has been actively working with the DRC to fund and implement conservation 

projects in the Warm Springs River, Trout Creek, Mack’s Canyon, and other subbasins of the 

lower Deschutes to improve water quality, habitat, and flows for resident fish and wild steelhead. 

Cooperative projects are also being planned and carried out in the upper basin, e.g., Squaw Creek 

and Crooked River subbasins, to improve habitat conditions for resident fish and the potential 

reintroduction of anadromous fish. 

The NMFS habitat matrix was used as a general guide to describe and discuss some habitat 

features as part of the environmental baseline for steelhead ESU in the lower Deschutes River. 

Table 6-6 summarizes these conditions where we had sufficient data and notes the effects of the 

proposed action. In general, operation of Reclamation’s projects in the Deschutes River subbasin 

has no discernable effect on steelhead habitat in the lower Deschutes River. 

September 2003 Final 6-33 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 6-6. NMFS Matrix Checklist Documenting Environmental Baseline and General 

Effects of Reclamation’s Operations on MCR Steelhead in the Lower Deschutes River. 

PATHWAYS

Indicators 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Properly 

Functioning 

At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning 

EFFECTS OF ACTIONS 

Restore Maintain Degrade 

Water Quality

Temperature 

U U

Sediment/Turbidity U U

Chem. Contaminants/ 

Nutrients 

U U

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers 

U U

Habitat Elements

Substrate 

U U

Large Woody Debris U U

Pool Frequency UNK UNK 

Pool Quality UNK UNK 

Off-channel Habitat N/A N/A 

Refugia U U

Channel Conditions and 

Dynamics

Width/Depth Ratio 

U U

Streambank Condition U U

Floodplain Connectivity U U

Flow/Hydrology

Change in Peak/Base 

Flows 

U U

Increase in Drainage 

Network 

N/A N/A 

Watershed Conditions

Road Density and 

Location 

U U

Disturbance History U U

Riparian Reserves UNK UNK 

UNK = unknown 

N/A = not applicable 

See narrative of indicators in Section 5.4.2.2.

6-34 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

6.5.2 Effects Conclusion 

Reclamation projects in the Deschutes River basin have resulted in an average reduction of 8.2 

percent in modeled 50 percent exceedance streamflows near Madras, just downstream from 

Pelton Reregulating Dam, for the period October through June. The reduction in modeled 50 

percent exceedance streamflows during this 9-month period ranges from 1.2 to 14.5 percent 

(50 cfs in June to 861 cfs in March). Conversely, during July, August, and September, 

modeled 50 percent exceedance streamflows increase for the proposed action, ranging from 0.2 

percent in September to 2.8 percent in August (Table 6-5). The 861 cfs (14.5 percent) 

reduction in modeled 50 percent exceedance streamflow in March reflects storage to project 

reservoirs, while the late summer increase in modeled streamflows reflects some return flows 

from springs in the area upstream from the Madras streamflow gage. 

The overall effects of Reclamation’s proposed action in the lower Deschutes River subbasin 

(i.e., annual altered modeled streamflows ranging from -14.5 to +2.8 percent, averaging -5.7 

percent) on the Deschutes River component of the MCR steelhead ESU appear to be 

negligible. Much of the Deschutes River steelhead spawning habitat occurs in the numerous 

eastside and westside tributaries where adverse effects on the fish caused by passage at two 

mainstem Columbia River dams; the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project dams that 

block access to historically occupied habitat upstream; the potential adverse effects of out-ofbasin, out-of-ESU hatchery strays spawning with wild Deschutes River steelhead; and the 

potential adverse ecological interactions between wild and hatchery-origin steelhead have a 

greater impact than Reclamation’s upper Deschutes River projects. A small portion of 

Deschutes River steelhead spawn in the upper reaches of the mainstem lower Deschutes River. 

Inasmuch as these factors and environmental conditions considered together have adverse 

effects on steelhead life stages, Reclamation=s proposed action will slightly reduce modeled 50 

percent exceedance streamflows for 9 months of the year, with an unquantifiable but likely 

insignificant effect on wild steelhead stocks in the lower Deschutes River. 

Population abundance of both wild and hatchery Deschutes River steelhead has increased in 

recent years. Historic streamflows in the ESA-defined environmental baseline as well as the 

modeled 50 percent exceedance streamflows in the “with Reclamation” and “without 

Reclamation” scenarios exceed the annual recommended streamflows (Aney et al. 1967). 

Annual water temperatures meet the ODEQ water temperature criterion of 64EF (17.8EC) for 

anadromous salmonids except for a period in the summer as measured near the mouth of the 

river at the Moody gage. Any effect of Reclamation=s proposed action on wild MCR steelhead 

in the lower Deschutes River is substantially outweighed by the numerous other factors listed 

above. It is Reclamation=s determination that Reclamation’s proposed action, the continued 

operation and maintenance of Reclamation projects in the Deschutes River basin, may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect, listed wild MCR steelhead stocks in the Deschutes River 

basin. 

September 2003 Final 6-35 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

6.6 CANADA LYNX

6.6.1 Effects Analysis 

Reclamation project O&M activities that could possibly have an effect on Canada lynx include 

reservoir drawdowns and clearing dam surfaces of vegetation that could be potential snowshoe 

hare habitat. However, reservoir fluctuations do not affect the surrounding habitat above the 

maximum high-water line where lynx and hare might occur, and dam surfaces are cleared on a 

routine basis and do not provide suitable habitat for hare. 

Recreational opportunities created by reservoirs increase human activity within reservoir areas. 

Human presence and activity may limit the use of the reservoir shoreline and adjacent lands by 

lynx, if present. However, research into concerns that human activity negatively impacts 

resident lynx populations has shown that lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance 

(USFWS 2000a). As the USFS manages recreational activities in the Clear Lake, Crane Prairie 

and Wickiup areas, they are the agency responsible for consulting with USFWS on any 

potential recreational impacts.

6.6.2 Effects Conclusion 

If Canada lynx are indeed present in the action area, there would be no impact to this species 

by Reclamation project O&M activities. Project O&M does not include alteration of any 

potential lynx habitat, and snowshoe hare and other small mammal species comprising lynx 

diet are not affected by project O&M. Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect on 

Canada lynx.

6.7 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

6.7.1 Effects Analysis 

Reclamation project O&M activities that could possibly have an effect on northern spotted 

owls include reservoir drawdowns and removal of vegetation from dam surfaces and along 

reservoir shorelines and canals. However, reservoir fluctuations do not affect the surrounding 

habitat above the maximum high-water line where spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging 

territories are located. As northern spotted owls do not prey on aquatic species, reservoir 

drawdowns do not affect their prey base, nor are the owls attracted to reservoirs. In addition, 

northern spotted owls do not rely on habitat that is routinely cleared from the dam surfaces, 

reservoir shorelines, and canal margins. 

6-36 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment

Recreational opportunities created by reservoirs increase human activity within reservoir areas. 

No evidence exists to determine whether or not this increased activity negatively impacts the 

northern spotted owl. However, it has been found that despite being a secretive species, the 

northern spotted owl is relatively unafraid of human beings. Additionally, northern spotted 

owls are nocturnal, and recreational activity drops significantly at night (Federal Register 

55:26114). The USFS biological assessments do mention the possibility of effects by human 

activity, stating that USFS actions within 1⁄4-mile of northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and 

foraging areas that exceed ambient (background) levels during the time period between March 

1 and September 30 require USFWS consultation (Jeffries 2002). Further, as the USFS is the 

agency managing recreational activity on land surrounding Clear Lake, Crane Prairie, and 

Wickiup Reservoirs, they are the agency responsible for consulting on potential recreational 

impacts. 

Reclamation project O&M activities have been ongoing and unchanged from the time the 

northern spotted owl was listed in 1990. The current existing northern spotted owl population 

status takes into account these ongoing actions, and it would appear there is no adverse effect 

(Jeffries 2002). 

6.7.2 Effects Conclusion 

Although numerous northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging territories occur near 

Reclamation projects within the Deschutes River basin, northern spotted owls do not forage on 

fish or other aquatic species that would attract them to Reclamation project reservoirs, nor is 

their prey base affected by project O&M activities. In addition, northern spotted owls do not 

depend on habitat provided by Reclamation project facilities, including dams and reservoirs. 

Therefore, Reclamation project O&M activities would have no effect on northern spotted owls. 

September 2003 Final 6-37 – 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

6-38 September 2003 – Final 
CHAPTER 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

7.1 INTRODUCTION 

Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving 

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the 

Federal action subject to consultation (USFWS and NMFS 1998). 

7.2 POPULATION GROWTH 

Most future cumulative actions in the Deschutes River basin may be associated with an 

increasing population. The Deschutes River basin population increased dramatically 

through the early 1900s with the improvements in irrigation facilities, then remained 

steady or increased at moderate levels up to the mid-1900s (Reclamation and OWRD 

1997). Most of these people are in the upper basin. Even people who do not rely upon 

the agricultural industry for their livelihoods still rely upon storage reservoirs and river 

systems for domestic and industrial water supplies, food, and recreation. From 1970 to 

1990 there was a dramatic increase in population centered around the major cities, 

especially Bend and Redmond. Deschutes County more than doubled in population 

during this period and continues to grow at a higher than average rate. The area=s beauty, 

lifestyle, land values, and other positive Apull@ factors have attracted many new residents, 

resulting in growth unusual in a small, rural county without major industrial 

development. Tourism and recreation have also become a major industry in the basin. 

The increasing population and associated housing developments and increased services 

may not directly influence ESA-listed species and their habitats in the basin. However, 

there may be indirect effects related to a decrease in water quality and more disturbance 

to biological and ecological needs of the species, as described below. 

7.3 RECREATION 

The demand for recreational opportunities in the Deschutes River basin is expected to 

increase (CTWSRO 1999). Much of the water-based recreation in the Deschutes River 

basin is focused on the lakes formed by storage dams. Reservoir and stream fishing and 

boating account for much of this water-based recreation. Rafting and canoeing on Wild 

and Scenic River sections located downstream of many of the major dams are 

increasingly important recreational endeavors in the basin. Recreation interests pressure 

September 2003 – Final 7-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

state and Federal agencies to maximize water conditions, streamflows, and reservoir pool 

elevations for recreation. 

Other than at access points and public use locations, increased recreation would seldom 

have adverse impacts on ESA-listed species. These desires may not be compatible with 

operations for irrigation or power production, and conflicts can arise. The indirect 

impacts of recreation include water quality degradation that results from constructing 

access to rivers and streams. Access points to recreation areas, ski resorts, boat docks, 

marinas, launch ramps, trails, hunting and fishing areas, can impact the habitat of listed 

species by degrading water quality, introducing noxious or competitive pest species, and 

can directly or indirectly interfere with species biological or ecological needs. 

7.4 NON-FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

The effects of land management practices involving grazing, timber harvest, mining, or 

recreational uses, will continue to influence the respective watersheds in the basin by 

affecting land surfaces, water retention and runoff, and water quality of surface water and 

groundwater (USDA and USDOI 2000). 

State, county, and local zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans may help ameliorate 

the adverse effects from land-use practices and developments directly or indirectly 

affecting streams and other water bodies. 

The Warms Springs Reservation lands are managed under the Tribes= integrated resource 

management plans (CTWSRO 1999 and 2000). In these plans, the Tribes have 

designated management goals for specified land areas. The objective of these goals is to 

protect and conserve natural resource values of the reservation lands for the benefit of 

tribal members and provide recreational opportunities for the general public at specified 

sites. 

7.5 WATER SUPPLY 

Additional large-scale irrigation developments are not anticipated in the Deschutes River 

basin. Future irrigation needs center mainly around the continued demand for hobby 

farm and ranchette types of development. Some of these needs may be provided by 

existing infrastructure and water rights. In areas where there is no existing source of 

water, and/or no means of conversion, there will be more demand on groundwater 

supplies through drilling of wells. 

The demand for increased and a more stable water supply for local communities is 

expected to continue as residential areas expand. Conversions of agricultural land to 

residential space will also create more demand for sustained municipal water supplies. 

7-2 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Water conservation measures are expected to be pursued in the basin by local 

governments and private irrigation companies in a continued effort to stretch water 

supplies and reduce costs of operation (Reclamation and OWRD 1997). Lining and 

piping of irrigation canals and farm laterals have been a growing interest in the basin and 

is expected to continue. 

As demands increase in the basin, there is the potential for further depletions of stream 

flows. This may especially be the case as groundwater resources are reduced through 1) 

more well development and 2) implementation of conservation projects, which have the 

potential to reduce groundwater recharge, therefore, reducing contributions to spring 

discharge to the middle and lower Deschutes River. 

The State of Oregon has put into effect several measures that may help ameliorate or 

counteract the effects which future water demands and conservation measures could have 

on streamflows. 

“The Allocation of Conserved Water Program is a voluntary activity that provides 

benefits to both water right holders and instream values. The law allows a water user 

who conserves water to use a portion of the conserved water on additional lands, 

lease or sell the water, or dedicate the water to instream use...In exchange for 

granting the user the right to “spread” a portion of the conserved water to new uses, 

the law allocates a portion to the state for instream use. After mitigating the effects 

on any other water rights, the Water Resources Commission allocates 25 percent of 

the conserved water to the state (for an instream water right) and 75 percent to the 

applicant, unless the applicant proposes a higher allocation to the state or more than 

25 percent of the project costs come from Federal or state non-reimbursable 

sources.” (OWRD 1999) 

If public funding is used to complete the project, the allocation for instream use may go 

as high as 75 percent, depending on the percent of non-repayable public funding. 

In a March 2001 published report, the OWRD and USGS determined a hydraulic 

connection between groundwater and surface water existed in the Deschutes River basin. 

To address this issue, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2184 giving the Oregon Water 

Resources Commission the authority to create a system of mitigation credits under 

existing Department programs and to adopt rules to recognize local mitigation banks to 

facilitate transactions of mitigation credits. 

In 2002, the Oregon Water Resources Commission adopted Deschutes Basin 

Groundwater Mitigation Rules to be administered by the OWRD (See OAR 690-

505.0600.) These rules require applicants for new groundwater permits in the Deschutes 

River basin to mitigate its consumptive use by restoring streamflows equal to the 

consumptive use. The OWRD will limit the issuance of new groundwater permits not to 

exceed a cumulative total of 200 cfs. 

September 2003 – Final 7-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The Oregon Water Resources Commission also adopted rules to establish a mitigation 

bank in the Deschutes River basin (see OAR 690-521-0100). The rules define the 

process to recognize and establish mitigation banks and establish, obtain, and assign 

mitigation credits. The DRC has applied with the Oregon Water Resources Commission 

and been approved as a charted entity to manage the mitigation bank in the Deschutes 

River basin. The mitigation credit and banking program’s intent is to mitigate the 

impacts of new groundwater uses on surface water rights and scenic waterway flows in 

the lower Deschutes River and prevent any reductions in instream flows in the basin from 

additional groundwater pumping. 

7.6 WATER QUALITY 

M&I water usage can result in water quality degradation. Perhaps the greatest effect 

from future M&I water use may be the increased wastewater return flows that could add 

to the nutrient and bacteria loads in stream sections that have depleted flows. The total 

impact of a growing population on water quality are cumulative and would add to 

impacts coming from ongoing and future economic development sectors such as logging, 

food processing, sand and gravel mining, mineral mining, and grazing. Most discharge 

related to point source activities are regulated under the NPDES permitting program. 

Water quality in the Deschutes River basin is managed by the State of Oregon under a 

framework provided in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The State of Oregon promulgates 

water quality standards in the Deschutes River basin for specific physical and chemical 

parameters in order to provide suitable conditions for the support of the recognized 

beneficial uses. 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify and develop a list of waters for 

which water quality is inadequate to fully support beneficial uses. The states then use the 

list to develop and implement water quality management plans, including pollutant load 

allocations. These water quality management plans and pollutant load allocations, 

commonly called Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), is scheduled for completion in 

2005 for the Deschutes River basin. 

Through an EPA and State of Oregon effort, the establishment of TMDLs are scheduled 

for completion in 2003 for the upper Deschutes River subbasin, 2004 for the lower and 

upper Crooked subbasins, and 2006 for the Lower Deschutes River subbasin. Oregon 

must develop these TMDLs to define pollutant discharge targets and responsibilities of 

point and non-point source contributors in achieving water quality goals. Activities 

associated with TMDL implementation should contribute to long-term improvements in 

the water quality of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers by reducing point and non-point 

source pollutant loads. (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm) 

7-4 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Another program which may help to maintain or improve water quality in urban areas of 

the basin is EPA’s Phase II Stormwater regulations. The Phase II regulations apply to 

smaller communities/cities requiring them to manage their stormwater (through the 

NPDES permit process) where they were not regulated in the past. This should reduce 

the amount of untreated stormwater from urban areas entering streams and rivers 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphase2.cfm?program_id=6). 

7.7 WATERSHED RESTORATION 

There has been a wide variety of ongoing conservation and restoration programs in the 

Deschutes River basin which promote improvements in instream flows and restoration of 

riparian ecosystems. 

Currently, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board provides funding through a small 

grant program for watershed restoration and enhancement projects on forest, agricultural, 

range, urban, and rural residential lands that use existing technical guidance (OWEB 

2003). 

The DRC also provides matching funds for restoration projects throughout the basin, 

striving to improve Deschutes River basin water quality and quantity through on-theground restoration projects. Anyone is eligible for DRC support. The DRC has funded 

projects from watershed councils, irrigation districts, private landowners, tribes, soil and 

water conservation districts, environmental organizations, state and Federal agencies, and 

local businesses (DRC 2003). 

The DRC is also working with the Deschutes Basin Coordination Group, a 16-party 

consortium of private, Federal, state, and tribal interests, to produce a comprehensive 

watershed restoration plan for the Deschutes River basin. The plan will be submitted to 

the Northwest Power Planning Council for adoption as a subbasin plan under the 

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. The plan will follow the subbasin planning 

guidance adopted by the Council and will also be submitted to the OWEB for 

consideration and adoption by OWEB as the goals and priorities for watershed restoration 

in the Deschutes Basin under ORS 541.371(1)(c) [www.nwppc.org/fw/ 

subbasinplanning/deschutes]. 

Local governments (e.g., soil and water conservation districts), private entities (e.g., 

watershed councils), and tribal efforts are expected to continue in supporting programs 

that benefit listed species. They will continue to participate with state and Federal 

agencies throughout the basin to implement ecological restoration measures which would 

incrementally improve instream flows and restore riparian ecosystems. 

September 2003 – Final 7-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

7.8 OREGON BULL TROUT STRATEGIES 

By 1996, restrictive angling regulations (catch and release/no harvest) protected most bull 

trout populations throughout the State of Oregon. Statewide stocking of non-native 

brook trout has been discontinued in locations where ODFW managers believe they could 

migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Also, hatchery 

stocking of legal-sized rainbow trout for recreational fisheries has been discontinued by 

ODFW managers in most locations near bull trout populations to reduce the incidental 

catch of bull trout. 

In 1997, ODFW published a report titled AStatus of Oregon=s Bull Trout; Distribution, 

Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status@ (Buchanan et al. 

1997). This document summarized the best scientific information presently available for 

bull trout throughout Oregon and reviewed their historical and current status, in addition 

to providing management considerations for the maintenance and recovery of existing 

bull trout populations. 

The State of Oregon has established a collaborative approach to restoration and 

protection of bull trout populations and their habitat by making use of local working 

groups comprised of fishery biologists, land managers, aquatic scientists, and concerned 

citizens to develop basinwide strategies for the protection and conservation of bull trout. 

These strategies will be incorporated into local watershed and regional ecosystem 

management plans, as well as Federal ESA recovery plans. 

ODFW recommends that working groups focus their conservation and restoration efforts 

on the identification of factors limiting individual bull trout populations and then 

prioritize strategies to address these factors. These groups have played an integral part in 

recommending recovery measures, through the USFWS’ recovery planning effort. 

7.9 OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS 

As early as 1996, the Governor of Oregon launched the Coastal Salmon Restoration 

Initiative to help preserve and restore native coastal salmon and steelhead populations 

throughout the State. The State of Oregon through this program developed the AOregon 

Plan@ (www.oregon-plan.org) which is a conservation plan designed to restore salmon to 

a level at which they can once again be a part of people's lives (Oregon 1998). The 

emphasis is on coho salmon in coastal river basins. However, it is a model that will 

expand to include all salmon and trout throughout the state, including MCR steelhead. 

While the plan focuses on the needs of salmon, it will conserve and restore crucial 

elements of natural systems that support fish, wildlife, and people. No other state has 

ever attempted such a comprehensive program. 

7-6 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

The Oregon Plan involves the following: 

1.	 Coordination of effort by all parties (including government agencies such as 

Reclamation), 

2.	 Development of action plans with relevance and ownership at the local level, 

3.	 Monitoring progress, and 

4.	 Making appropriate corrective changes in the future. 

7.10 ODFW FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The ODFW has prepared fisheries management plans, adopted by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission, which establish policy and action items for the management and 

conservation of fisheries resources in the upper and lower Deschutes River, Crooked 

River, and Metolius River subbasins (See Fies et al. 1996a, ODFW 1997, Stuart et al. 

1996, Fies et al. 1996b). These plans provide directions for specific fish species and 

waterways and include objectives to guide habitat maintenance or improvements and 

restoration of anadromous fish (Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, and summer steelhead) 

and bull trout into historic ranges within the basin. Action items include restoration of 

fish passage, biological monitoring, enforcement actions, as well as hatchery fish 

stocking regimes, angling regulations, and maintenance of public angling access. 

Consistent with the plans’ objectives, ODFW has pursued improving fish passage at 

barriers within the Deschutes River basin. Specifically, it has worked with the Deschutes 

Valley Water District and other entities to examine construction of a fish ladder at the 

Opal Springs Dam to allow anadromous fish and bull trout to migrate up and 

downstream. 

The ODFW is currently amending these fisheries management plans to provide additional 

direction for reintroduction of anadromous fish above the Pelton-Round Butte 

hydropower complex (Kunkel 2003). ODFW is developing draft administrative rules for 

approval by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and for subsequent comment by 

the public. 

September 2003 – Final 7-7 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

7.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON 

LISTED SPECIES 

7.11.1 Bald Eagle 

•	 Degradation of potential breeding and nesting habitat could occur from future 

development and land practices on state and private lands, but most of the 

available habitat for the bald eagle is on Federal lands where habitat values would 

most likely be preserved. 

•	 Increased number of recreationists and recreational pursuits in forested habitats 

may result in more disturbance to the breeding, reproductive, and foraging habits 

of the bald eagle. 

•	 Future stream depletions and degradation of water quality could impair the habitat 

of the fish and waterfowl prey species. 

•	 Ongoing stream and riparian restoration measures, TMDL processes, State of 

Oregon statutes and regulations, and other conservation activities in the basin 

would help ameliorate or reduce any adverse future effects on streamflows and 

water quality. 

7.11.2 Bull Trout 

•	 Future stream depletions and degradation of water quality could impair the habitat 

of fluvial and adfluvial bull trout populations. 

•	 Ongoing stream and riparian restoration measures, TMDL processes, State of 

Oregon statutes and regulations, and other conservation activities in the basin 

would help ameliorate or reduce any adverse future effects on streamflows and 

water quality. 

•	 Continued programs promoted under the Oregon Bull Trout Strategies, in 

conjunction with Federal recovery efforts, would help preserve and possibly 

improve habitat conditions for Deschutes River basin bull trout populations. 

7.11.3 Steelhead 

•	 Future stream depletions and degradation of water quality could impair the habitat 

of wild Deschutes River steelhead stocks. 

•	 Ongoing stream and riparian restoration measures, TMDL processes, State of 

Oregon statutes and regulations, and other conservation activities in the basin 

would help ameliorate or reduce any adverse future effects on streamflows and 

water quality. 

7-8 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

•	 Continued programs promoted under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds, in conjunction with Federal recovery efforts, would help preserve 

and possibly improve habitat conditions for Deschutes River wild steelhead 

stocks. 

7.11.4 Canada Lynx and Northern Spotted Owl 

•	 Degradation of potential habitat could occur from future development and land 

practices on state and private lands, but most of the available habitat for these 

species is on Federal lands where habitat values would most likely be preserved. 

•	 Increased numbers of recreationists and recreational pursuits in forested habitats 

may result in more disturbance to the breeding, reproductive, and foraging habits 

of these species. 

September 2003 – Final 7-9 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

7-10 September 2003 – Final 
 

CHAPTER 8.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

8.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES 

Reclamation=s proposed action is continuance of current O&M programs of Reclamation 

project facilities in the Deschutes River basin as described in the BA. The three projects 

that are addressed in the BA are: Deschutes Project, Crooked River Project, and 

Wapinitia Project. 

The BA examined the proposed actions effects on ESA-listed species. Effects of 

interrelated and interdependent actions have also been included in the evaluation. These 

effects are added to the proposed action’s environmental baseline to make a 

determination of the effect. 

Reclamation has determined that the proposed action would have no effect on the 

following threatened species: 

• Canada lynx 

• Northern spotted owl 

Reclamation=s analysis shows that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect the following threatened species: 

• Bald eagle 

• Bull trout 

• MCR steelhead (Deschutes wild steelhead stocks) 

Table 8-1 summarizes the proposed action’s effects on ESA-listed species, as described 

in Chapter 6. 

September 2003 – Final 8-1 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Table 8-1. Summary of Proposed Action Effects on ESA Species 

Deschutes River Basin, Oregon 

Project Location Occurrence in 

Project Area 

Effects Summary Description of Anticipated 

Effects 

No 

Effect 

Not 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

CANADA LYNX C LISTED THREATENED 

Wickiup and Crane Prairie 

Reservoirs 

Lynx Analysis 

Unit 

X No effect on upland areas 

where there may be potential 

lynx habitat. 

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL C LISTED THREATENED 

Wickiup Reservoir, Crane 

Prairie Reservoir, and Clear 

Lake 

Critical Habitat 

Units (CHU) 

Nesting, 

Roosting, & 

Foraging 

Territories 

X 

X 

No effect on upland CHU 

areas nor on nesting, roosting, 

& foraging territories. 

BALD EAGLE C LISTED THREATENED 

Upper Deschutes River 

Subbasin: 

Wickiup & Crane Prairie 

Reservoirs 

Breeding, 

Nesting & 

Wintering 

X Number of breeding pairs and 

nesting success would 

continue to fluctuate in 

response to varying 

environmental conditions as 

well as reservoir operations. 

Conditions for wintering eagles 

would not change. 

Deschutes River below Breeding, Flow conditions would not 

Wickiup Reservoir Nesting, & 

Wintering 

X change. Conditions for prey 

base would remain 

unchanged. Number of 

breeding pairs and nesting 

success would be expected to 

remain the same. 

Conditions for wintering eagles 

would not change. 

Middle Deschutes River 

Subbasin 

Breeding, 

Nesting, & 

Wintering 

X 

This population in the Metolius 

and near Lake Billy Chinook is 

not affected by the proposed 

action. 

8-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

 

 

 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Project Location Occurrence in 

Project Area 

Effects Summary Description of Anticipated 

Effects 

No 

Effect 

Not 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

Crooked River Subbasin: 

Prineville Reservoir 

Nesting 

Wintering 

X 

X 

Reservoir levels would 

continue to provide for an 

adequate prey base. No 

expected change in nesting or 

foraging opportunities. 

There would continue to be an 

adequate winter foraging base. 

Ochoco Reservoir Wintering X Winter reservoir carryover 

would remain unchanged. 

Lower Deschutes River 

Subbasin: 

Clear Lake (White River 

Subbasin) 

Breeding & 

Nesting 

X No change in reservoir 

operations. No expected 

change in nesting or foraging 

opportunities. 

Lower Deschutes River Breeding, 

Nesting, & 

Wintering 

X 

An adequate foraging base 

would continue in the lower 

river. 

BULL TROUT C LISTED THREATENED 

Upper Deschutes River 

Subbasin 

No longer 

present 

X NONE 

Middle Deschutes River 

Subbasin: 

Middle Deschutes River 

Adfluvial & fluvial 

population 

X Project operations would 

continue to influence flows and 

water quality, but there would 

continue to be adequate 

habitat conditions for the 

existing population which 

inhabits the middle Deschutes 

and Lake Billy Chinook. 

Metolius River Adfluvial 

population 

X Project operations have no 

effect on the Metolius River 

Crooked River Subbasin: 

Upper Crooked River 

No longer 

present 

X NONE 

Lower Crooked River Adfluvial 

population 

X Projects operations would 

continue to influence flows and 

water quality, but there would 

continue to be adequate 

habitat conditions for the 

September 2003 – Final 8-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Project Location Occurrence in 

Project Area 

Effects Summary Description of Anticipated 

Effects 

No 

Effect 

Not 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

Likely to 

Adversely 

Affect 

existing population which 

inhabits the Crooked River arm 

of Lake Billy Chinook. 

Lower Deschutes River 

Subbasin 

Fluvial population X Project operations would 

continue to influence flows and 

water quality in the lower 

Deschutes River, but there 

would continue to be adequate 

habitat conditions for the 

growing population. 

MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD C LISTED THREATENED 

Middle Deschutes River 

Subbasin 

No longer 

present 

X NONE 

Crooked River Subbasin No longer 

present 

X NONE 

Lower Deschutes River 

Subbasin 

Adult and 

juvenile migrants, 

adult spawners, 

juvenile rearing 

X Hydrologic modeling shows 

that project operations would 

continue to influence flows in 

the lower Deschutes River, but 

overall effects are not likely to 

adversely affect listed wild 

steelhead stocks. 

8-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

CHAPTER 9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

9.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended 

by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, requires Federal action agencies to consult with the 

Secretary of Commerce (i.e., NMFS) regarding any action or proposed action authorized, 

funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH identified under the 

Act. The EFH regulations [50 CFR 600.920(e)(3)] enable Federal agencies to use 

existing consultation/environmental review procedures to satisfy EFH consultation 

requirements if they meet the following criteria: 1) the existing process must provide 

NMFS with timely notification of actions that may adversely affect EFH; 2) notification 

must include an assessment of impacts of the proposed action as discussed in section 

600.920(g); and 3) NMFS must have made a finding pursuant to section 600.920(e)(3) 

that the existing process satisfies the requirements of section 305(b)(2) of the MSA. 

Such a finding was made by NMFS on March 28, 2000, as follows: 

NMFS finds that the existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 

consulting requirements used by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for 

Federal activities can be used to satisfy the EFH consultation requirements of the 

MSA provided that NMFS and Reclamation adhere to the following steps: 1) Timely 

Notification...2) EFH Assessment...3) NMFS Conservation Recommendations... 4) 

Reclamation’s Response... and 5) Dispute Resolution...(NMFS 2000c). 

9.2 DESCRIPTION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. – Magnuson-Stevenson Act § 3 

EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery means those waters and substrate necessary to support 

a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. 

The Pacific salmon EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other 

water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

and California. The geographic extent of freshwater EFH is specifically defined as all 

waters currently or historically accessible to salmon within the USGS hydrologic units 

identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC 1999). Salmon EFH 

excludes areas upstream from longstanding naturally impassible barriers (e.g., Big Falls 

September 2003 – Final 9-1 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

on middle Deschutes River), but includes aquatic areas above all artificial barriers except 

the impassible barriers (dams) specifically listed by Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(1999), e.g., the Hells Canyon complex on the Snake River. 

In the Deschutes River basin, Pacific Salmon EFH includes the hydrologic units as listed 

in Table 9-1 below. 

Table 9-1. Deschutes River Basin, Pacific Salmon EFH Hydrologic Units 1 

Unit # Hydrologic Unit Name Species Current or Historic Distribution 

#17070301 Upper Deschutes River Chinook salmon Inaccessible Historic Habitat 

#17070305 Lower Crooked River Chinook salmon Inaccessible Historic Habitat 

#17070306 Lower Deschutes River 

(Barrier = Opal Springs Dam)2 Chinook salmon 

Coho salmon3 Current Habitat Current Habitat3 

#17070307 Trout Creek Chinook salmon 

Coho salmon3 

Accessible but Unutilized Historic Habitat 

Current Habitat3 

1

Taken from PFMC (1999) 

Reclamation Notes: 2

Opal (corrected spelling) Springs Dam is actually on the lower Crooked River (USGS Steelhead Falls 

Quadrangle) 

3

According to CTWSRO (1999) and Pribyl (2000) coho salmon are neither indigenous nor current inhabitants 

of the Deschutes Basin. 

Chinook salmon EFH overlaps in part the action area of the proposed action. Refer to 

Chapter 2 of this BA. 

9.3	 STATUS, LIFE HISTORY, AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF 

DESCHUTES BASIN SALMON STOCKS 

9.3.1 Spring Chinook Salmon 

The lower Deschutes River supports both wild and hatchery runs of spring Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Spring Chinook salmon of the Middle Columbia 

River Spring-run ESU are not listed under the ESA. These fish use the lower Deschutes 

River primarily as a migration corridor, although some spawning does occur and 

juveniles also use the river as rearing habitat. Wild stocks currently spawn in the Warm 

Springs River system and Shitike Creek, both tributaries of the lower Deschutes River on 

CTWSRO tribal lands (Figure 9-1). Hatchery spring Chinook salmon return to the Warm 

Springs National Fish Hatchery on the Warm Springs River and to the Round Butte 

Hatchery via the Pelton Fish Trap on the Deschutes River at the Reregulating Dam. 

9-2 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin 

Spring Chinook Salmon 

0 20 40

Miles

44°N 

45°N 

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Ochoco Creek

McKay Creek 

B a k eo v en Cr eek 

Paulina Cr. 

Horse Heaven Cr. 

North F

§ ̈¦84

tu20

tu26

tu97

tu197

tu30

tu20 tu26

tu97

Bend 

Redmond Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

122°W 

122°W 

121°W 

121°W 

Metolius River 

Crook

Columbia Rive r 

Deschutes River 

Squa w

Creek 

Trout 

Creek 

Shitike Creek 

Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Waldo 

Lake 

Cultus 

Lake 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Little 

Clear Lake 

and Wasco Dam 

Warm Springs R. 

Des chutes Rive r 

Maupin 

W h ite River Clear 

Creek 

Wapinitia 

Creek 

Big 

Falls 

216

216

126

31

58

Steelhead Falls 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

Beaver Cr. 

Paulina Cr. 

ork Crooked R. 

Twel vemile Creek 

tu395

120°W 

120°W 

44°N 

45°N Sources:

 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2002

 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation, 1999

 Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

ed River 

South Fork Crooked River 

 ́

Current and historic 

spring chinook 

spawning and rearing 

Historic summer steelhead 

distribution only (no known 

current distribution) 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

NOTE

Deschutes River Basin 

Figure 9-1 

Current and historic 

spring chinook 

rearing and migration 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

9-4 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Spring Chinook salmon destined for the Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek enter the 

Deschutes River primarily during April, May, and June (CTWSRO 1999). They 

normally move quickly through the lower river to cooler water in higher elevation 

tributaries (Pribyl 2000). Wild stocks are separated from hatchery stocks at hatcheries. 

The fish mature over the summer and spawn during late August and September. Eggs 

incubate during the winter and fry emerge from the gravel in late winter or early spring. 

About one-half of these fish move out of the spawning tributary during the next fall, 

probably overwintering in the mainstem of the lower Deschutes River before emigrating 

to the ocean. Other spring Chinook salmon juveniles stay in the tributary until about 18 

months of age, then emigrate directly to the ocean (age-1+ smolts). Approximately 80 

percent of Deschutes River spring Chinook salmon return to the river after 2 years in the 

ocean (age-4 adults). Roughly 5 percent return after one year in the ocean (as age-3 

jacks); and 15 percent return after three years in the ocean (age-5 adults). It is unknown 

if spring Chinook salmon use the lower 2 miles of the White River; water temperature 

periodically exceeds the ODEQ criterion of 64EF for anadromous salmonids. 

According to CTWSRO (1999), the optimum management escapement goal for spring 

Chinook salmon in the Warm Springs River above the hatchery is 1,300 wild adults, a 

goal that has been met in 14 of the 26 years (including 2000 and 2002) from 1977 to 2002 

(Pribyl 2003). Since 1977, the run of wild adult and jack spring Chinook salmon as 

enumerated at the Pelton fish trap and the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery trap has 

averaged 1,954 fish. Escapement of wild adult and jack spring Chinook salmon has 

ranged from a high of 2,781 in 2000 to a low of 266 in 1995. The Warm Springs River 

above the hatchery and Shitike Creek are managed for wild fish only. Hatchery fish are 

not released in Shitike Creek or allowed to spawn in the Warm Springs River upstream 

from the hatchery. Since 1977, the spring Chinook salmon run (hatchery and wild fish) 

to the Deschutes River minus harvest has varied between about 1,100 (in 1980) to over 

11,000 (in 2002). 

Spring Chinook salmon once inhabited the Deschutes River above the current PeltonRound Butte Project reservoirs, up to Steelhead Falls (a natural barrier at RM 128), as 

well as the Metolius River system and the Crooked River system. Access to these 

subbasins was eliminated with construction of the Pelton-Round Butte Project beginning 

in 1956. Fish passage facilities provided by the project were unsuccessful, and operation 

of the facilities was discontinued in 1968 because of the difficulty in attracting 

outmigrating juvenile anadromous fish to collection facilities (CTWSRO 1999). 

Hatchery compensation was initiated in 1968 (Nehlsen 1995). As described in Chapter 5 

of this biological assessment, CTWSRO, ODFW, and others are actively studying ways 

to restore anadromous fish runs above the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project. A 

major obstacle to restoration is getting outmigrating juvenile fish back down river 

because of currents in Lake Billy Chinook that apparently disorient the fish. Nehlsen 

September 2003 – Final 9-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

(1995) reported that the Round Butte cofferdam altered the behavior of downstream 

migrants in the Pelton pool. 

9.3.2 Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon 

The Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon were indigenous to the lower 

Deschutes River. This is a distinct ESU not listed under the ESA. These fish used the 

river upstream and downstream from the Pelton-Round Butte Project site and probably 

the lower Metolius and Crooked River systems as well (Figure 9-2). Currently, 

summer/fall Chinook salmon spawn at preferred sites from the mouth of the Deschutes 

River to the Pelton Reregulating Dam. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s, 

large numbers of summer/fall Chinook salmon spawned in the upper portion of the lower 

Deschutes River. Construction of the fishway at Sherars Falls provided easier access to 

upstream spawning areas for fall migrants, especially during low water years. However, 

in the 1980s and 1990s, the number of fish spawning upstream from Sherars Falls has 

decreased, while the numbers spawning downstream from Sherars Falls has increased 

dramatically (CTWSRO 1999). Pribyl (2003) reported that 26.2 percent of summer/fall 

Chinook salmon redds were counted in the 57 miles of the lower Deschutes River 

upstream from Sherar Falls, while 73.8 percent of summer/fall Chinook salmon redds 

were counted in the 43 miles downstream from Sherar Falls, for the period 1989-2002. 

EFH for summer/fall Chinook salmon is combined with that for spring Chinook salmon 

in the Deschutes River basin by the PFMC (1999). 

The Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon ascend the Columbia River as 

maturing adults during mid-to late-summer and fall, and enter the Deschutes River from 

July through late November. Unlike spring-run Chinook salmon, these fish consist of 

only wild stocks that hold and spawn in the mainstem lower Deschutes River. There is 

no documented use of the lower White River by these fish (Pribyl 2000). Spawning takes 

place mainly during October and November. Fry emerge the following spring from 

March through June. Juvenile residence time in the Deschutes River is relatively short, 

only several months, with the subyearling smolts leaving the system the same spring or 

summer they emerge from the gravel and then migrate to the ocean. Mature summer/fall 

Chinook salmon range in age from 2 to 6 years (CTWSRO 1999). Because these fish 

spawn and rear in the normally warmer mainstem river, incubation and growth occurs 

somewhat faster than for spring-run Chinook salmon that spawn in the cooler headwater 

streams. 

Over the last 25 years, the total run of wild summer/fall Chinook salmon has varied 

between about 2,800 (in 1992) to over 20,000 (in 1997). The 2002 run was about 13,200 

fish. 

9-6 September 2003 – Final 
 

 

Deschutes River Basin 

Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon 

0 20 40

Miles

44°N 

45°N 

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Ochoco Creek

McKay Creek 

B a k eo v en Cr eek 

Paulina Cr. 

Horse Heaven Cr. 

North F

§ ̈¦84

tu20

tu26

tu97

tu197

tu30

tu20

tu97

tu26

Bend 

Redmond Sisters 

The Dalles 

Hood River 

Prineville 

Warm Springs 

122°W 

122°W 

121°W 

121°W 

Metolius River 

Crook

Columbia Rive r 

Deschutes River 

Squa w

Creek 

Trout 

Creek 

Shitike Creek 

Wickiup 

Reservoir 

Waldo 

Lake 

Cultus 

Lake 

Crane Prairie 

Reservoir 

Crescent 

Lake 

Odell 

Lake 

Davis 

Lake 

Prineville Reservoir 

Lake 

Simtustus 

Lake Billy 

Chinook 

Little 

Clear Lake 

and Wasco Dam 

Warm Springs R. 

Des chutes Rive r 

Maupin 

W h ite River Clear 

Creek 

Wapinitia 

Creek 

Big 

Falls 

216

216

126

31

58

Steelhead Falls 

Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation 

Beaver Cr. 

Paulina Cr. 

ork Crooked R. 

Twel vemile Creek 

tu395

120°W 

120°W 

44°N 

45°N 

Sources:

 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2002

 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation, 1999

 Bureau of Reclamation, PN Region 

September 04, 2003 

ed River 

South Fork Crooked River 

 ́

Historic summer/fall chinook 

distribution only (no known 

current distribution) 

Species data are only 

shown within the 

Deschutes River Basin. 

NOTE

Deschutes River Basin 

Figure 9-2 

Current and historic 

summer/fall chinook 

distribution 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

9-8 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

9.3.3 Coho Salmon 

According to CTWSRO (1999) and Pribyl (2000), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

are not indigenous to the Deschutes River basin and are not currently propagating in the 

basin as shown in Table 9-1. The PMFC (1999) designated EFH for coho salmon in the 

lower Deschtues River and Trout Creek, but since coho salmon are not indigenous to the 

Deschtutes River basin, their designation of EFH is most likely erroneous. During 24 

years of operating the fish trap at Sherars Falls on the lower Deschutes River, Pribyl 

(2000) has documented only an occasional coho salmon (i.e., one stray every other year 

or so). CTWSRO released coho salmon in the basin in the 1960s, but these fish had only 

a one-life-cycle return to the basin. 

9.4 EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

9.4.1 Inaccessible Historic Habitat (Middle Deschutes Subbasin and 

Crooked River Subbasin) 

Effects of flow alterations resulting from operation of Reclamation facilities of the 

Deschutes and Crooked River Projects, along with operation of non-Federal water storage 

and diversion facilities, reduce inflows to the Deschutes River upstream from PeltonRound Butte project; however, large spring inflows (augmented by irrigation 

groundwater recharge) restore or replace a substantial amount of the water that is stored 

or diverted upstream. These spring inflows to the Deschutes River above Lake Billy 

Chinook help ameliorate the effects of project-caused flow reductions in this reach of the 

river and dilute potential pollutants contained in irrigation surface return flows. Flows 

and water quality in this reach of the river appear to be adequate to support resident trout 

(e.g., bull trout and redband trout) as far upstream as Steelhead Falls (RM 128), a natural 

fish barrier, and also to provide fish access to lower Squaw Creek. 

Storage and diversion of flows on the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers do not significantly 

affect the levels of Lake Billy Chinook. Operation of the Pelton-Round Butte 

Hydroelectric Project has the major influence relative to water quantity in Lake Billy 

Chinook and its tributary arms. 

Return flows from irrigated project lands add nutrients, bacteria, and agricultural 

chemicals via the Deschutes and Crooked River inflows into Lake Billy Chinook. While 

these pollutants are diluted by large spring inflows, they do reduce the overall water 

quality of the lake, which often experiences seasonal algal blooms. There is no indication 

to date that water quality of Lake Billy Chinook is adversely affecting resident fish 

populations in the lake. 

September 2003 – Final 9-9 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Operation of Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs, pumping into the NUID canal from the 

Crooked River, and agricultural return flows have significantly reduced flows and 

impaired water quality in the lower Crooked River and its tributaries, adversely affecting 

fish habitat. However, at this time, Opal Springs Dam, a private facility, located 

immediately upstream from Lake Billy Chinook, blocks all upstream fish passage on the 

Crooked River. Opal Springs Dam is considered the upstream extent of Pacific salmon 

EFH. 

9.4.2 Accessible/Current and Historic Habitat (Lower Deschutes 

Subbasin) 

Reclamation’s upper Deschutes River subbasin irrigation storage and withdrawals result 

in modeled net stream depletions in the lower Deschutes River as described in Chapter 6, 

and indirect and indiscernible effects on water quality. Changes in modeled streamflow 

at Madras in the “with Reclamation” scenario compared to “without Reclamation” flow 

conditions as described in Chapter 6, range from -14.5 percent in March to a +2.8 percent 

in August (Table 6-5). This is due to water storage during the winter and irrigation 

releases during the summer. However, Reclamation projects in the upper Deschutes 

subbasin have no effect on the current spring Chinook salmon spawning tributaries in the 

lower Deschutes River, e.g., Shitike Creek and the Warm Springs River, nor on 

accessible historic spawning tributaries, e.g., Trout Creek. Flow fluctuations and water 

quality effects in the lower Deschutes River are influenced by operation of the PeltonRound Butte Hydroelectric Project and by downstream surface and groundwater inflows. 

Water temperature effects of Reclamation’s operations on the lower Deschutes River are 

offset by cooler groundwater returns reducing in-river water temperatures (Appendix B). 

There are no easily discernible or quantifiable effects of Reclamation’s operations on the 

thermal regimes of the lower Deschutes River. 

As noted in Chapter 6, the lower Deschutes River has a relatively uniform and stable 

annual flow regime, although natural warming of the river occurs as it flows downstream. 

The Deschutes River water temperature meets the ODEQ water temperature criterion for 

anadromous salmonids of 17.8EC at Madras (Table 5-12), but exceeds this criterion in the 

summer at Moody (Aney et al. 1967). Nonetheless, some upper Columbia River adult 

salmon and steelhead use the lower Deschutes River seasonally as a thermal refugium 

during their upstream migration. Operations of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric 

Project mask for the most part any affect Reclamation’s upper Deschutes River projects 

have on water temperature in the lower Deschutes River. It would be difficult if not 

impossible to separate out the effects of Reclamation’s upper Deschutes River operations 

on water temperature in the lower Deschutes River. 

9-10 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Dissolved oxygen is decreased somewhat downstream from Lake Billy Chinook in the 

lower Deschutes River, in large part the result of the complex interaction of nutrient 

inputs, water temperature, other environmental conditions, and the subsequent production 

of algae in the lake and not by Reclamation operations. The seasonal decrease in 

dissolved oxygen has resulted in a portion of the lower Deschutes River being placed on 

the Oregon 303(d) list of impaired streams. The reach of the lower Deschutes River just 

downstream from the Pelton Reregulating Dam supports some salmonid spawning. 

Some sedimentation occurs in the lower Deschutes River, but Reclamation has no 

projects on the tributary sources of sediment except in the White River, and much of that 

sediment contribution is of glacial origin upstream from the Wapinitia Project lands. 

The relatively small amount of water storage and streamflow depletions from diversions 

to the Wapinitia Project lands in the White River subbasin (about -102 cfs in February 

but about +6 cfs during the irrigation season) do not substantially affect lower Deschutes 

River flows, especially considering the amount of carriage losses that are eventually 

returned to the adjacent streams. However, the sum total of all lower basin agricultural 

diversions and practices (both Federal and non-Federal) may significantly affect flows 

and water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen and water temperature) during the irrigation 

season, especially in low water years. 

9.5 EFFECTS CONCLUSION 

This effects conclusion is limited to Chinook salmon EFH in the Deschutes River basin. 

Available scientific information indicates that the operation of Reclamation projects in 

the upper Deschutes River basin, in conjunction with the operation of non-Federal 

irrigation projects in the basin, may have an adverse affect on historical but presently 

unoccupied EFH, (i.e., the river basin upstream from the Pelton-Round Butte 

Hydroelectric Project), but has no adverse affect on currently accessible Chinook salmon 

EFH in the lower Deschutes River and no effect on EFH in Trout Creek. Spring Chinook 

salmon generally spawn and rear in westside tributaries, while summer/fall Chinook 

salmon predominantly spawn and rear in the main river. 

The effects of Reclamation’s operations on environmental conditions and habitat in the 

lower Deschutes River are difficult to partition out from the effects that the Pelton-Round 

Butte Hydroelectric Project has downstream, except perhaps for the modeled hydrology 

with and without Reclamation as described in the accompanying biological assessment. 

The effects of operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project far outweigh the 

effects of Reclamation’s upper river operations on the lower Deschutes River. 

September 2003 – Final 9-11 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Current Reclamation operations in the upper Deschutes River do not measurably degrade 

anadromous salmonid habitat of the lower Deschutes River. Table 6-6 and the 

accompanying discussion of the habitat indicators in Chapter 6 of the biological 

assessment, based on the NMFS habitat matrix of pathways and indicators, does not 

indicate degradation in habitat indicators in the lower Deschutes River from operation of 

Reclamation projects in the upper Deschutes River. Water temperatures at Madras meet 

the ODEQ water temperature criterion of 17.8EC for anadromous salmonids. 

Summertime warming of the river further downstream is the result of natural processes. 

The seasonal reduction in dissolved oxygen is the result of physical and biological 

processes operating in Lake Billy Chinook. 

Reclamation’s ongoing operations in the Deschutes River basin will not adversely affect 

currently occupied EFH for Chinook salmon in the lower Deschutes River. 

9-12 September 2003 – Final 
 

CHAPTER 10.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Allan, J. H. 1980. Life history notes on the Dolly Varden charr (Salvelinus malma) in 

the upper Clearwater River, Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish 

and Wildlife Division, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. 

Aney, W.W., M.L. Montgomery, and A.B. Lichens. 1967. Lower Deschutes River, 

Oregon; Discharge and the Fish Environment. Oregon State Game Commission, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Batt, P.E. 1996. Governor Phillip E. Batt’s State of Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan. 

Boise, Idaho. 20pp. 

Bauman, Richard. 2002. Personal Communication. Environmental Specialist. Snake 

River Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 6. Bethesda, Maryland. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). July 1992. Lower Crooked River, Chimney 

Rock Segment, Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Prineville 

District, Oregon 

BLM (U. S. Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2001. Joint 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment, April 2001 - April 

2003, for Federal Lands within the Deschutes Basin Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management Prineville Office and for Federal Lands Administered by the 

Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. 

Block, D. G. 1955. Trout migration and spawning studies on the North Fork drainage of 

the Flathead River. University of Montana. MS Thesis. 

Brun, C. 2003. Personal Communication. Fish Biologist. Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Indian Reservation. 

Brun, C.V. and R.D. Dodson. 2000. Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance in the 

Waters on and Bordering the Warm Springs Reservation, 2000 Annual Report. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

September 2003 – Final 10-1 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

. 2001. Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance in the Waters on and 

Bordering the Warm Springs Reservation, 2000 Annual Report. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull 

Trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland Oregon. 

Burton, T. 1997. Personal Communication. Fish Biologist, Boise National Forest. 

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, 

and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 p. 

Caldwell, R.R. 1998. Chemical study of regional ground-water flow and groundwater/surface-water interaction in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4233, 49 p. 

Chilcote, M. W. January 1998. Conservation Status of Steelhead in Oregon. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Reports Number 98-3. Portland, 

Oregon. 

. 1999. Genetic Risks to Native, Wild Salmonids in the Imnaha River, 

Oregon, due to Hatchery Supplementation. Affidavit to Federal District Court 

Regarding Hatchery Supplementation. 5 p. 

Clowers, G. 2002. Prineville Reservoir Bald Eagle Habitat/Noxious Weed Survey, June 

– July 2002. Raven Research. West Madras, Oregon. 

Cramer, S.P. and R.C.P. Beamesderfer. 2001. Population Dynamics, Habitat Capacity, 

and a Like History Simulation Model for Steelhead in the Deschutes River, Oregon. 

Draft. Prepared for Portland General Electric, Portland, Oregon. 151 p. 

CTWSRO. 1999. (The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

Oregon) and Warm Spring Power Enterprises. Pelton Project Final License 

Application (FERC License 2030). Warm Springs, Oregon. Four Volumes. 

CTWSRO. (The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and 

Portland General Electric). September 14, 2000. Draft Joint Application 

Amendment for the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 

2030 and No. 11832). 

CTWSRO. (The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon) and 

PGE (Portland General Electric). 2002. Joint Applicants’ Response to FERC 

10-2 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Request for Additional Information, Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project 

(FERC License No. 2030). Two Volumes. 

Dean, B. 2002. Personal Communication. Prineville Area Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, Prineville, Oregon. 

Dillon, Jeff. 2002. Personal Communication. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 

DRC (Deschutes Resources Conservancy). 2003. 

http://www.deschutesrc.org/projects.htm 

Elle, S., R. Thurow, and, T. Lamansky. 1994. Rapid River Bull Trout Movement and 

Mortality Studies. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, River and Stream 

Investigations: Subproject II, Study IV, Job Performance Report, Project F-73-R-17, 

Project 6. Boise, Idaho). 

Fassnacht, H. and G.E. Grant. 1995. Draft Literature Review on Downstream Effects of 

Dams on Alluvial Rivers: Applications to the Deschutes River, Oregon. Oregon 

State University and USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon. 35 p. 

Fassnacht, H., E. McClure, G.E. Grant, and P. Klingeman. 2002. Downstream Effects of 

the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project on Bedload Transport, Channel 

Morphology, and Channel-bed Texture, Lower Deschutes River, Oregon. 

Federal Register 55:26114-26194. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final 

Rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 26. 

Federal Register 57:1796-1838. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. January 15. 

Federal Register 60:36000-36010. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 12. 

Federal Register 64:15417-14528. 1999. Threatened Status for Two ESUs of Steelhead 

in Washington and Oregon. National Marine Fisheries Service. March 25. 

Federal Register 64:36454-36464. 1999. Proposed Rule to Remove the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. July 6. 

September 2003 – Final 10-3 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Federal Register 65:7764-7787. 2000. Critical Habitat for 19 Evolutionary Significant 

Units of Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. February 16. 

Federal Register 65:16052-16086. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct 

Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 24. 

Feiger, M. 2002. Personal Communication. Hood River Ranger District, Mt. Hood 

National Forest, Hood River, Oregon. 

Fies, T., J. Fortune, B. Lewis, M. Manion, and S. Marx. 1996a. Upper Deschutes River 

Subbasin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Upper 

Deschutes Fish District, Bend, Oregon. October 1996. 

Fies, T., B. Lewis, M. Manion, and S. Marx. 1996b. Metolius River Subbasin Fish 

Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Upper Deschutes Fish 

District. December 1996. 

Gannett, Marshall W., Kenneth E. Lite Jr., David S. Morgan, and Charles S. Collins. 

2001. Groundwater Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162, p 45. 

_________________. p 73. 

_________________. p 26. 

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers, and A. Contreras (eds.). 1994. Birds of Oregon, status 

and distribution. Cinclus Publications, MCMinnville, Oregon. 

Giorgi, A., M. Miller, and J. Stevenson. 2002. Mainstem Passage Strategies In the 

Columbia River System: Transportation, Spill, and Flow Augmentation. Prepared 

for Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 86 p. plus appendices. 

Gorman, K. 2002. Personal Communication. Regional Manager. Oregon Water 

Resources Department. Bend, Oregon. 

Harmata, A. R. and B. Oakleaf. 1992. Bald Eagles in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem: an Ecological Study with Emphasis on the Snake River, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne. 2 vol. 368pp. 

Henshaw, F. F., J. H. Lewis, and E. J. McCaustland. 1914. Deschutes River, Oregon, 

and its utilization. U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 344. 

10-4 September 2003 – Final 
 

Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Huntington, C., T. Hardin, and R. Raymond. 1999. Water Temperatures in the Lower 

Deschutes River, Oregon. Prepared for Portland General Electric Company, 

Portland, Oregon. 50 p. 

Isaacs, F., S. Reed, R. Reed, and R. Anthony. 1992. Habits of Bald Eagles Wintering in 

Northeastern Oregon and Adjacent Areas of Washington and Idaho. Oregon 

CooperativeWildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 23pp. plus 

tables, figures, and appendices. 

Isaacs, F. B., R. Goggans, R. G. Anthony, and T. Bryan. 1993. Habits of Bald Eagles 

Wintering Along the Crooked River, Oregon. Northwest Science, 67 (2):55-62. 

Issacs, F. 1997. Personal Communication. Oregon Eagle Foundation. Lakeview, 

Oregon. 

Isaacs, F. and R. Anthony. 1999. Bald Eagle Nest Locations and History of Use in 

Oregon and the Washington Portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 

Through 1999. Oregon Coop. Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 32pp. plus tables, figures and appendix. 

. 2002. Bald Eagle Nest Locations and History of Use in Oregon and 

the Washington Portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 Through 2002. 

Oregon Coop. Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 21pp. 6 

tables, 3 figures, 1 appendix (34 pages total). 

Iwamoto, R. N. and J. G. Williams. 1993. Juvenile salmonid passage and survival 

through turbines. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. 

Contract E86920049, 27 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washington 98112-2097.) 

Jeffries, Shane. 2002. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist. Deschutes 

National Forest. 

Knowles, C. J. and Robert G. Gumtow. 1996. Saving the Bull Trout. The Thoreau 

Institute, Oak Grove, Oregon. 21pp. 

Krebs, Charles J. January, 2001. What Drives the 10-Year Cycle of Snowshoe Hares? 

BioScience [online]. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 

(@findarticles.com) 

Kunkel, Clari. July 16, 2003. Personal Communication. Deschutes Watershed District 

Manager. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

September 2003 – Final 10-5 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

LaMarche, J. 2001. Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution 

Model. Surface Water Open File Report #SW02-001. Published by Oregon Water 

Resources Department. 

Lewis, S.C. and R. Raymond. 2000. Lower Deshutes River Dissolved Oxygen Study, 

1999. Prepared for Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon. 18 p. 

plus appendices. 

Lichatowich, J., R. Williams, and J.H. Nathan. 1998. A Conceptual Foundation for the 

Management of Native Salmonids in the Deschutes River. Prepared for Portland 

General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon. 170 p. 

Marx, Steven. July 31, 2000. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bend, Oregon. 

. April 2003. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, 

Oregon. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bend, Oregon. 

McClure, M., B. Sanderson, E. Holmes, C. Jordan, P. Kareiva, and P. Levin. 2000. 

Revised Appendix B of standardized quantitative analysis of the risks faced by 

salmonids in the Columbia River basin. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. September. 

Minear, P. J. 1999. Historical Riparian Conditions and Large In-Channel Wood, 

Deschutes River, Oregon. Prepared for Portland General Electric, Portland, Oregon. 

88 p. plus appendices. 

Morehead, Carol. March 30, 1999. Personal Communication. Biologist. Deschutes 

National Forest, Bend , Oregon. 

Muir, W. D., S.G. Smith, K. W. McIntyre, and B. P. Sandford. 1998. Project survival of 

juvenile salmonids passing through the bypass system, turbines, and spillways with 

and without flow deflectors at Little Goose Dam, 1997. Report to U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Contract E86970085, 47 p. (Available from 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washington 

98112-2097.) 

Nehlsen, W. 1995. Historical Salmon and Steelhead Runs of the Upper Deshutes River 

and Their Environments. Prepared for Portland General Electric Company, Portland, 

Oregon. 65 p. plus references and two appendices. 

Newton, J.A. and S. Pribyl. 1994. Bull Trout Population Summary: Lower Deschutes 

River Subbasin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

10-6 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). August 1996. Factors for Decline. A 

Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead Under the 

Endangered Species Act. Portland, Oregon and Long Beach, California. 83 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Biological Opinion on Artificial 

Propagation in the Columbia River Basin. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region, Seattle,Washington. 177 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000a. A Standardized Quantitative 

Analysis of Risks Faced by Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Cumulative 

Risk Initiative. 123 p. plus appendix and tables. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Passage of Juvenile and Adult 

Salmonids Past Columbia and Snake River Dams. White Paper. Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washinton 38 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). March 28, 2000c. NMFS Finding that 

Bureau of Reclamation Existing Environmental Review Procedures for Federal 

Projects Meet EFH Consultation Requirements. Memorandum to Mr. J. William 

McDonald, Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region. From William Stelle, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). March 9, 2001. Letter - Re: Updated 

Species List Request for Species Which May Be Affected by Bureau of Reclamation 

Reservoir Operations in the Deschutes River Basin, OR. Chief, Oregon State 

Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, Portland, Oregon. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1990. Salmon and Steelhead Production 

Plan, Deschutes River Subbasin. 146 p. 

O’Connor, J. E., G. E. Grant, J. H. Curran, and H. Fassnacht. 1999. Geomorphology of 

the Deschutes River below the Pelton Round Butte Dam Complex, Oregon. Prepared 

for Portland General Electric, Portland, Oregon. 102 p. Draft. 

O’Connor, J.E., G.E. Grant, and T.L. Haluska. 2002. Overview of Geology, Hydrology, 

Geomorphology, and Sediment Budget of the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon. Draft. 

USGS and US Forest Service. 41 p. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1997. Lower Deschutes River 

Subbasin Management Plan. Mid-Columiba Fish District. July 1997. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2002. District Annual Report, Mid 

Columbia Fish District. 

September 2003 – Final 10-7 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. Middle Columbia and Snake 

Basin ESUs. (<http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/FishText/SteelheadWeb/ 

Part10.html>) 

ONHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center). Canada Lynx. Data Set. 2002a. 

ONHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center). Northern Spotted Owl. Data 

Set. 2002b. 

Oregon, State of. 1998. Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed. www.oregon-plan.org 

OWEB (Oregon Water Enhancement Board). 2003. 

(http://www.oweb.state.or.us/SmallGrant/smallgrant.shtml 

OWRD (Oregon Water Resources Department). 1999. Allocation of Conserved Water 

Program. (http://www.wrd.state.or.us/programs/stewardship/conserved.shtml 

OWRD (Oregon Water Resources Department). 2002. Deschutes Basin Mitigation Bank 

and Mitigation Credit Rules. Oregon Administrative Rules 690-521-0100 through 

690-521-0600. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). August 1999. Appendix A – 

Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and 

Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific 

Coast Salmon Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

Peery, C.A., and T.C. Bjornn. 2002. Water Temperatures and Passage of Adult Salmon 

and Steelhead in the Lower Snake River. U.S. Geological Survey, Moscow, Idaho. 

Technical Report 02-1. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, 

Washington. 80p. 

Ploskey, G., T. Poe., A. Giorgi, and G. Johnson. 2001. Synthesis of Radio Telemetry, 

Hydroacoustic, and Survival Studies of Juvenile Salmon at The Dalles Dam (1982-

2000). Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Contract 

Number DACW57-00-D-0009, Task Order Case No. 3. 

PGE (Portland General Electric). 2002. Response to FERC Request for Additional 

Information. Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2030, AIR 11. 

Pribyl, Steve. April 27, 2000. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

Pribyl, Steve. July 13, 2002. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

10-8 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Pribyl, Steve. April 30, 2003. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

Pribyl, Steve. September 3, 2003. Personal Communication. District Fish Biologist, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

Ratliff, D.E., and P.J. Howell. 1992 The Status of Bull Trout Populations in Oregon. In 

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Workshop, Oregon Chapter of AFS, 1992. 

American Fisheries Society. Corvallis, Oregon 

Ratliff, D.E., S.L. Thiesfield., W.G. Weber,. A. Stuart, M.D. Riehle, D.V. Buchanan. 

1996. Distribution, life history, abundance, harvest, habitat, and limiting factors of 

bull trout in the Metolious River and Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon, 1983-94. 44 pp. 

Fish Division. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 

Ratliff, Don. April 19, 2001. Personal Communication. Fishery Biologist. Portland 

General Electric. Madras, Oregon. 

. September 17, 2002. Personal Communication. Fishery Biologist, 

Portland General Electric, Madras, Oregon. 

Raymond, R.B., J.M. Eilers, J.A. Bernert, and K.B. Vache. 1998. Lower Deschutes 

River Studies Water Quality and Biota 1997 Final Report. Pelton Round Butte 

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Number 2030. 26 p. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). September 1992. Environmental 

Assessment and Prineville Reservoir Resource Management Plan, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Boise, Idaho. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). November 1993. Draft Environmental 

Assessment - Ochoco Safety of Dams Project, Crooked River Project, Oregon. 

Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and OWRD (Oregon Water Resources 

Department). 1997. Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study – 

Special Report, Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties, Oregon. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). July 1999. Finding of No Significant Impact 

and Final Environmental Assessment, Wasco Dam Safety of Dams Project, 

Wapinitia Project, Oregon. Lower Columbia Area Office, Portland, Oregon. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2003a. Operations Description of the 

Deschutes River Basin Projects. Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho. 

September 2003 – Final 10-9 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2003b. Prineville Reservoir Resource 

Management Plan and Master Plan: Finding of No Significant Impact and Final 

Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Reg ion, Lower Columbia Area 

Office, Portland, Oregon. 

Reisenbichler, R.R. 1996. Effects of supplementation with hatchery fish on carrying 

capacity and productivity of naturally spawning populations of steelhead. Pages 81-

92 in G.E. Johnson, D.A. Neitzel, and W.V. Mavros [eds.] Proceedings from a 

Workshop on Ecological Carrying Capacity of Salmonids in the Columbia Basin: 

Measure 7.1A of the Northwest Power Planning Council's 1994 Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Report 3 and 4. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 

Riehle, M., D. Wilcox, and Chris Brun. 1997. An assessment of watershed condition 

and risk to bull trout in response to proposed timber harvest and salvage in the 

Metolious River basin. USFS Sisters Ranger District, Sisters, Oregon. 

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements of 

Bull Trout. United States Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General 

Technical Report INT-302. Boise, Idaho. 

Russell, I. C. 1905. Preliminary Report on the geology and Water Resources of Central 

Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 252. 138 p. 

Schriever, Ed. July 24, 2002. Personal Communication. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. Lewiston, Idaho. 

Soules, Gary. June 23, 1999. Personal Communication. Biologist. Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 

Stillwater, L. 2003. MODSIM Simulation of Deschutes River Basin Projects Operations 

Modeling Results, Model Version October 31, 2002. Available on CD from U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, PN-6200, 1150 N. Curtis 

Road, Boise, Idaho 83706-1234. 

Stone, Steve. May 28, 2002. Personal Communication. Email to Monte McClendon 

(USBR). National Marine Fisheries Service. Portland, Oregon. 

Stuart, A.M., S.T. Thiesfeld, T.K. Nelson, and T.M. Schrader. 1996. Crooked River 

Basin Plan, Ochoco Fish District. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Portland, Oregon. 

Thiesfield, S.L., A.M. Stuart, D.E. Ratliff and B.D. Lampman. 1996. Migration patterns 

of adult bull trout in the Metolious River and Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Pp. 17 

Fish Division, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

10-10 September 2003 – Final 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

Tuchmann, E. Thomas, Kent P. Connaughton, Lisa E. Freedman, and Clarence B. 

Moriwaki. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: A Report to the President and 

Congress. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and Economic 

Assistance. Martha H. Brookes, Editor. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and (U.S. Department of Interior). 2000. 

Interior Columbia Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement. Walla Walla, 

Washington and Boise, Idaho. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). July 1996. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and 

State Scenic Waterway, Comprehensive Management Plan. Deschutes National 

Forest, Bend, Oregon. 

USFS (U. S. Forest Service). February 2002. List of Bald Eagle Nest Sites (and Bald 

Eagle Managment Plans) Within the Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoir Areas and 

Along the Deschutes River Below these Reservoirs. Bend & Ft. Rock Ranger 

Districts, Bend, Oregon. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald 

Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Biological Opinion for Lake Roosevelt 

Bald Eagles--Salmon Flow Augmentation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho 

State Office, Boise, Idaho. 16pp. 

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). June 5, 1998. News Release: Fish and 

Wildlife Service Lists Two Bull Trout Populations. Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook – Procedures for 

Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). October, 2000a. Biological Opinion of the 

Effects of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of 

Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada Lynx. Available at url: 

fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html. 

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). December, 2000b. Biological Opinion: 

Effects to Listed Species from Operations of the Federal Columbia River Power 

System. Regions 1 and 6. 

September 2003 – Final 10-11 
Deschutes River Basin Projects Operation and Maintenance Biological Assessment 

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). March 14, 2001. Letter providing updated 

lists of species for the Deschutes River Basin Projects (1-7-01-SP-285A-E). State 

Supervisor, Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). May 5, 2003. Memorandum: “Informal 

Consultation on the Final Environmental Assessment for the Prineville Reservoir 

Resource Management Plan.” State Supervisor, Portland, Oregon. 

Verts, B.J., and L.N. Caraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of 

California Press; Berkley, California 

Zabel, R.W., S.G. Smith, W.D. Muir, D.M. Marsh, J.G. Williams, and J.R. Skalski. 

2001. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids 

Through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2001. Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, contract DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 93-29. 95 p. 

Zakrajsek, L. 2002. Preliminary Meeting Notes (July 9, 2002): Eagle Habitat Use in 

Prineville Reservoir and Adjacent land. Bureau of Reclamation, Bend, Oregon. 

(Preliminary results of study by Raven Research). 

Zimmerman, C.E. and G.H. Reeves. 1998. Steelhead and Rainbow Trout: Early Life 

History and Habitat Use in the Deschutes River, Oregon. 1997 Annual Report. 

Prepared for Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon. 21 p. 

. 2000. Population structure of sympatric anadromous and 

nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss: evidence from spawning surveys and otolith 

microchemistry. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:2152-2162. 

10-12 September 2003 – Final 
— APPENDICES — 

— APPENDIX A— 

Updated Species List from NMFS and 

USFWS 

Refer to: 

OHB2002-0159-SL 

Mr. Ronald J. Eggers 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Pacific Northwest Region 

Lower Columbia Area Office 

825 NE Multnomah Street, Suite Ill 0 

Portland, Oregon 97232-2135 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmr-e>nh<>ri. A_._ • • • ............. 
 NATIONAL MARINE FISHER~~ECLAMATION 

525 NE Oregon Street 2 ~_1'"\C:OCJAL F\LE COPY 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97 -~ll~ 

JUL 0 8 'Ci2 

July 3, 2002 

CONTROL I: 

FOLDER#: 

TO INIT 

t I 

Re: 	 Updated Species List Request for Species Which May Be Affected by Bureau of 

Reclamation Reservoir Operations in the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon. 

Dear Mr. Eggers: 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received your June 5, 2002, letter requesting an 

updated list of threatened and endangered anadromous fish species which may be affected by 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) reservoir operations in the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon. We 

have enclosed a list ofthose·anadromous fish species that are listed as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), those that are proposed for listing, and those that are 

candidates for listing. This inventory only includes species under NMFS' jurisdiction that occur 

in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be contacted regarding the 

presence of species falling under its jurisdiction. 

A vail able information indicates that ten anadromous fish species listed under the ESA are known 

to be present within or downstream from the proposed action area. Middle Columbia River 

(MCR) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) which NMFS listed as threatened (March 25, 1999,64 

FR 14517) are known to spawn and rear in the Deschutes River and its tributaries downstream 

from Pelton Dam. Snake River (SR) fall, SR spring/summer, and Upper Columbia River (UCR) 

spring chinook salmon (0. tshawytcha); SR sockeye salmon (0. nerka); and SR and UCR 

steelhead (0. mykiss) migrate past the mouth of the Deschutes River in the Columbia, and 

sometimes enter the lower Deschutes for brief periods before continuing their migration up the 

Columbia River. Lower Columbia River (LCR) chinook salmon, LCR steelhead and Columbia 

River chum salmon (0. keta) occur in the Columbia River, and certain tributaries downstream 

from Hood River. 

Furthermore, habitat in and along the length of the Columbia River has been designated as 

critical habitat for SR fall chinook salmon, SR spring/summer chinook salmon, and SR sockeye 

salmon. Additional information on listed species' distribution, copies ofFederal Register 
documents designating listed species status, and links to various ESA consultation policies and 

tools may be found on our web site at: www.nwr.noaa.gov. For information on the ESA section 

7 consultation process, please refer to the ESA section 7 implementing regulations, 50 CFR Part 

402. . 

In addition, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC), which was established under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, has described and identified essential fish habitat (EFH) in each ofits 

fisheries management plans. EFH includes "those waters and substrates necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." All habitat, excluding areas upstream of 

longstanding, naturally-impassible barriers, in the Upper Deschutes watershed (HUC 17070301), 

Lower Crooked River watershed (HUC 17070305), and Trout Creek watershed (HUC 17070307) 

is designated as EFH for chinook salmon. All habitat, excluding areas upstream of longstanding, 

naturally-impassible barriers, in the Lower Deschutes watershed (HUC 17070306) is designated 

as EFH for chinook salmon and coho salmon. Additional information addressing EFH may be 

found on our web site cited above. 

Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Scott Hoefer of my staff at 503.231.6938. 

Sincerely, 

.-;$~ ~chael Tehan 

t' Chief, Oregon State Branch 

Habitat Conservation Division 

Enclosure: 

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species That Occur under National Marine Fisheries 

Service Jurisdiction in Oregon 

_./'""' 

Ellen Bergg~ Peter Lickwar, USFWS 

cc: 

2 

Enclosure 

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species That Occur under National 

Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction in Oregon 

(T=threatened, E=endangered, CH=critical habitat) 

Listed Species: 

Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

-S. Oregon/N. California Coasts Evolutionarily Significant Unit(ESU)(T) 

-Oregon Coast ESU (T) 

Chinook Salmon (0. tshawytscha) 


-Snake River fall-run ESU (T)(CH) 


-Snake River spring/Summer-run ESU (T)(CH) 


Lower Columbia River ESU (T) 


Opper Willamette River ESU (T) 


Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU (E) 


Chum Salmon (0. keta) 


-Columbia River ESU (T) 


Sockeye Salmon (0. nerka) 


-Snake River ESU (E)(CH) 


Steelhead (0. mykiss) 


-Upper Columbia River ESU (E) 


-Snake River Basin ESU (T) 


-Lower Columbia River ESU (T) 


-Upper Willamette River ESU (T) 


-Middle Columbia River ESU (T) 


Proposed for Listin~: 

-None 

Candidates for Listin~: 

-Coho Salmon (0. kisutch) 

Lower Columbia River/SW Washington ESU 

-Steelhead (0. mykiss) 

Oregon Coast ESU 

3 


United States Department of the Interior .. · JUE :~ll 20(!2 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Oregon Fish -----------··­ ,.. .r"" and Wildlife Office 

2600 S.E. 98th A venue, Suite 100 ·-------.---.-----­ Portland, Oregon 97266 	 ' ' 

(503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231-6195 -·-------..---~--_...~- ; 

-------·-···----------" 

Reply To: 8330.7401(02) ----------·---­ File Name: Sp740.wpd June2852~-.L.__..____ _ 
 TS Number: 02-5889 

Ronald J. Eggers 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

825 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1110 

Portland, OR 97232-2135 

Subject: 	 Deschutes River Basin Projects 

USFWS Reference# (1-7-02-SP-740) 

Dear Mr. Eggers: 

This is in response to your letter, dated May 28, 2002, requesting information on listed and 

proposed endangered and threatened species that may be present within the area of the Deschutes 

River Basin Projects in Deschutes County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

received your correspondence on May 28, 2002. 

We have attached a list (Attachment A) of threatened and endangered species that may occur 

within the area of the Deschutes River Basin Projects. The list fulfills the requirement of the 

Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). 	U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR)requirements under the Act are outlined in 

Attachment B. 

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the 

ecosystems on which they depend may be conserved. Under section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the 

Act and pursuant to 50 CFR 402 et seq., BR is required to utilize their authorities to carry out 

programs which further species conservation and to determine whether projects may affect 

threatened and endangered species, and/or critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required 

for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) which are major 

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)). For projects other than 

major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to the 

Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether they may affect listed and proposed 

species. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described in Attachment B, as 

well as 50 CFR 402.12. 

If BR determines, based on the Biological Assessment or evaluation, that threatened and 

endangered species and/or critical habitat may be affected by the project, BR is required to 

consult with the Service following the requirements of 50 CFR 402 which implement the Act. 

Printed on 100% chlorinefree/60% post-consumer coment paper 
2 

Attachment A includes a list of candidate species under review for listing. The list reflects 

changes to the candidate species list published October 30, 2001, in the Federal Register (Vol. 

66, No. 210, 54808) and the addition of "species of concern." Candidate species have no 

protection under the Act but are included for consideration as it is possible candidates could be 

listed prior to project completion. Species of concern are those taxa whose conservation status is 

of concern to the Service (many previously known as Category 2 candidates), but for which 

further information is still needed. 

If a proposed project may affect only candidate species or species of concern, BR is not required 

to perform a Biological Assessment or evaluation or consult with the Service. However, the 

Service recommends addressing potential impacts to these species in order to prevent future 

conflicts. Therefore, if early evaluation of the project indicates that it is likely to adversely 

impact a candidate species or species of concern, BR may wish to request technical assistance 

from this office. 

Your interest in endangered species is appreciated. The Service encourages BR to investigate 

opportunities for incorporating conservation of threatened and endangered species into project 

planning processes as a means of complying with the Act. If you have questions regarding your 

responsibilities under the Act, please contact Stacy Sroufe at (503) 231-6179. All 

correspondence should include the above referenced file number. For questions regarding 

salmon and steelhead trout, please contact National Marine Fisheries Service, 525 NE Oregon 

Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon 97232, (503) 230-5400. 

Sincerely, 

//l)/ 1J.'l A l J.

,/L · t/ / v LLt)__.. / V'le l-c.c,:JtZ?-­

C~ Kemper M. McMaster 

uv State Supervisor 

Attachments 

1-7 -02-SP-7 40 

cc: 	 OFWO-ES 

ODFW (nongame) 
ATTACHMENT A 

FEDERALLY USTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, 


CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE 


AREA OF THE DESCHUTES RIVER BASIN PROJECTS 


LISTED SPECIES 11 

Mammals 


./Canada lynx:!! 


Birds ...,. Bald eagle31 

.,. Northern spotted owl41 

Fish 

v Steelhead (Middle Columbia River)51 

"" Bull trout (Columbia River pop)61 

PROPOSED SPECIES 

None 

CANDIDATE SPECIES7' 

Birds 


Yellow-billed cuckoo81 


Amphibians and Reptiles 


Columbia spotted frog 


Oregon spotted frog 


SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Mammals 


Pygmy rabbit 


Pale western big-eared bat 


California wolverine 


Silver-haired bat 


Pacific fisher 


Small-footed myotis (bat) 


Long-eared myotis (bat) 


Fringed myotis (bat) 


Long-legged myotis (bat) 


Yuma myotis (bat) 


California bighorn sheep 


Preble's shrew 


1-7-02-SP-740 . 

Lynx canadensis T 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus T -Strix occidentali8 c-aurina CHT 

Oncorhynchus mykiss **T 

Salvelinus conjluentus T 

Coccyzus americanus 

Rana luteiventris 

Rana pretiosa 

Brachylagus idahoensis 

Corynorhinus ( =Plecotus) townsendii pallescens 

Gulo gulo luteus 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Martes pennanti pacifica 

Myotis ciliolabrum 

Myotis evotis 

Myotis thysanodes 

Myotis volans 

Myotis yumanensis 

Ovis canadensis califomiana 

Sorex preblei 
Birds 

Northern goshawk 

Tricolored blackbird 

Western burrowing ow I 

Ferruginous hawk 

Band-tailed pigeon 

Greater sage-grouse 

Black tern 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Willow flycatcher 

Harlequin duck 

Yellow-breasted chat 

Lewis' woodpecker 

Mountain quail 

White-headed woodpecker 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Coastal tailed frog 

Oregon slender salamander 

Northern red-legged frog 

Cascades frog · Northern sagebrush lizard 

Fish 

Pacific lamprey 

Interior redband trout 

In vertebrates 

Beller's ground beetle 

California floater (mussel) 

Cascades apatanian caddisfly 

Mt. Hood farulan caddisfly 

Great Columbia River spire snail 

One-spot rhyacophilan caddisfly 

Plants 

Wallow a rice grass 

Peck's milk-vetch 

Crenulate grape-fern 

Disappearing monkeyflower 

Little mousetail 

Lichen 

Accipiter gentilis 


Agelaius tricolor 


Athene cunicularia hypugea 


Buteo regalis 


Columba fasciata 


Centrocercus urophasianus 


Chlidonias niger 


Contopus cooperi (=borealis) 


Empidonax trailli adastus 


Histrionicus histrionicus 


Icteria virens 


Melanerpes lewis 


Oreortyx pictus 
 . Picoides albolaxvatus 

Ascaphus truei 


Batrachoseps wrighti 


Rana aurora aurora 


Rana cascadae 


Sceloporus graciosus graciosus 


Lampetra tridentata 


Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi 


Agonum belleri 


Anodonta californiensis 


Apatania ( =Radema) tavala 


F arula jewetti 


Fluminicola columbianus 


Rhyacophila unipunctata 


Achnatherum wallowaensis 

Astragalus peckii 

Botrychium crenulatum 

Mimulus evanescens 

Myosurus minimus ssp. apus (= var. sessiliflorus) 

Texosporum sancti-jacobi 

(E)- Listed Endangered (T)- Listed Threatened (CH)- Critical Habitat has been designated for this species 

( PE) - Proposed Endangered ( PT) - Proposed Threatened ( PCH) - Critical Habitat has been proposed for this species 

(S)- Suspected (D)- Documented 

Species ofConcern- Taxa whose conservation status is of concern to the Service (many previously known as Category 2 candidates), but for 

whichfunher information is still needed. 
!! U.S. Department of1nterior, Fish and Wildlife Service, October 3/, 2000, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 50 CFR 

17.1/ and 17.12 

Y Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 58, Mar 24, 2000, Final Rule-Canada lyru: 

!! Federal Register Vol. 60, No. /33, July 12, /995- Final Rule- Bald Eagle 

1! Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 10, January 15, 1992, Final Rule-Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl 

J Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 57, March 25, /999, Final Rule- Middle Columbia and Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

~ Federal Register Vol. 63, No. Ill, June 10, 1998, Final Rule-Columbia River and Klamath River Bull Trout 

~ Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 210, October 30, 2001, Notice ofReview- Candidate or Proposed Animals and Plants 

!: Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 143, July 25, 2001, 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Yellow-billed Cuckoo­
ATTACHMENT B 

FEDERAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTION 7(a) and (c.) 

OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

SECTION 7 (a)-Consultation/Conference 

Requires: 

1) Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered 

and threatened species; 

2) Consultation with FWS when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or 

threatened species to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal 

agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat. The process is initiated by the 

Federal agency after they have determined if their action may affect (adversely or 

beneficially) a listed species; and 

3) Conference with FWS when a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the coiitinued 

existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed 

Critical Habitat. 

SECTION 7(c)-Biological Assessment for Major Construction Projects1 

Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) for 

construction projects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify proposed and/or listed species 

which are/is likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a Federal 

agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species (list attached). 

The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is 

mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, the 

accuracy of the species list should be informally verified with our Service. No irreversible 

commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would foreclose reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to protect endangered species. Planning, design, and administrative actions 

may be taken; however, no construction may begin. 

To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should: (1) conduct an on-site inspection of 

the area to be affected by the proposal which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine 

if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing 

population or for potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to 

determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview 

experts including those within FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, State conservation 

departments, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; 

(4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and 

populations, including consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its 

habitat; (5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures and (6) prepare a 

report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used, any problems 

encountered, and other relevant information. The BA should conclude whether or not a listed 

species will be affected. Upon completion, the report should be forwarded to our Portland Office. 

1A construction project (or other undertaking having similar physical impacts) which is a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as referred to in NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332. (2)c). On projects 

other that construction, it is suggested that a biological evaluation similar to the biological assessment be undertaken to 

conserve species influenced by the Endangered Species Act. 
— APPENDIX B— 

Water Quality Report 

DESCHUTES RIVER BASIN BIOLOGICAL 

ASSESSMENT - WATER QUALITY
 

INTRODUCTION
 

Water quality in the Deschutes River basin is managed by the state of Oregon under a framework 

provided in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The state of Oregon promulgates water quality 

standards in the Deschutes River Basin for specific physical and chemical parameters in order to 

provide suitable conditions for support of recognized beneficial uses (Table 1). 

On March 31, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty ordered the EPA to void its earlier 

approval of Oregon’s water temperature standards. Oregon has initiated rulemaking and is 

working in concert with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, EPA, NMFS, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to develop new temperature criteria. For water quality discussions in this 

BA, Reclamation will use Oregon’s existing temperature criteria for comparison purposes. 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify and develop a list of waters for which water 

quality is inadequate to fully support beneficial uses. The states then use the list to develop and 

implement water quality management plans, including pollutant load allocations. These water 

quality management plans and pollutant load allocations, commonly called Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL), are scheduled for completion in 2005 for the Upper Deschutes subbasin, the 

Lower and Upper Crooked subbasins, and the Lower Deschutes subbasin. Water bodies, or 

stream reaches, that are potentially influenced by Reclamation projects in the Deschutes River 

basin that have been identified as not supporting beneficial uses and the pollutant causing the 

impairment are listed in Table 2. 

-1-
Table 1. Recognized Beneficial Uses for the Deschutes Basin 

(Source: State of Oregon ,Oregon Administrative Rules, Table 9, 2002) 

Beneficial Uses 

Columbia River 

(RM 203 to 218) 

Deschutes River 

Main Stem from 

Mouth to Pelton 

Regulating Dam 

Deschutes River Main Stem 

from Pelton Regulating Dam 

to Bend Diversion Dam and 

for the Crooked River Main 

Stem 

Deschutes R

Stem abo

Diversion D

the Metolius 

Ste

Public Domestic Water Supply 1 X X X X 

Private Domestic Water Supply 1 X X X X 

Industrial Water Supply X X X X Irrigation X X X X 

Livestock Watering X X X X Anadromous Fish Passage X X X X Salmonid Fish Rearing X X X X Salmonid Fish Spawning X X X Resident Fish and Aquatic Life X X X X 

Wildlife and Hunting X X X X 

Fishing X X X X 

Boating X X X X 

Water Contact Recreation X X X X 

Aesthetic Quality X X X X 

Hydro Power X X 

Commercial Navigation and Transportation 

X 

1. With adequate pretreatment (filtration and disinfection) and natural quality to meet drinking water standards. 
Table 2. 303(d) Listed Waters in the Deschutes River Basin 

(Source: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2002, Oregon’s Final 1998 Water Quality Limited 

Waterbody or Stream Reach Impairment Parameter Criteria 

Crooked River: Mouth to Baldwin Dam 

1. Temperature - Summer 2. Bacteria - Summer 3. pH - year around 4. Flow Modification 

1. Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

2. Water Contact Recreation - fecal c(listing based on the 1996 standard) 3. 6.5 - 8.5 4. No Criteria 

Crooked River: Baldwin Dam to Prineville Reservoir 

Total Dissolved Gas 110% 

Ochoco Creek: Mouth to Camp Branch 

Temperature - Summer Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

Clear Creek: Mouth to headwaters 

Temperature - Summer Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

Deschutes River: Mouth to White River 

1. pH 2. Temperature - Summer 

1. 6.5 - 8.5 2. Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

Deschutes River: White River to Reregulating Dam 

1. Dissolved Oxygen - Oct - July 2. Temperature - Summer 

1. Salmonid Spawning 11 mg/L 2. Oregon Bull Trout 50oF (10oC) 

Wapinitia Creek: Mouth to Headwaters 

Temperature - Summer Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

White River: Mouth to Rock Creek 

Temperature - Summer Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

Deschutes River: Lake Billy Chinook to Steelhead Falls 

pH - May - Sep 6.5 - 8.5 

Deschutes River: Steelhead Falls to North Unit Main Canal 

1. pH - May - Sep 2. Temperature - Summer 3. Flow Modification 

1. 6.5 - 8.5 2. Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

3. No Criteria 
Waterbody or Stream Reach Impairment Parameter Criteria 

Deschutes River: North Unit Canal to Central Oregon Canal 

pH - Summer 6.5 - 8.5 

Deschutes River: Central Oregon Canal to Little Deschutes 

1. Dissolved Oxygen - Oct - July 2. Sedimentation 3. Turbidity - Spring/Summer 4. Flow Modification 5. Habitat Modification 

1. Salmonid Spawning 11 mg/L 2. Formation of appreciable bottom dis not allowed 3. No more than a 10% cumulative inturbidities 4. No Criteria 5. No Criteria 

Deschutes River: Little Deschutes to Wickiup Reservoir 

1. Dissolved Oxygen - Oct - July 2. Sedimentation 3. Turbidity - Spring/Summer 4. Flow Modification 5. Habitat Modification 

1. Salmonid Spawning 11 mg/L 2. Formation of appreciable bottom dis not allowed 3. No more than a 10% cumulative inturbidities 4. No Criteria 5. No Criteria 

Deschutes River: Wickiup Reservoir to Crane Prairie Reservoir 

Temperature - Summer Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

Lake Billy Chinook 

1. Chlorophyll a - Spring/Summer/Fall 2. pH - Summer 

1. 0.015 mg/L 2. 6.5 - 8.5 

Squaw Creek: Alder Springs to Maxwell Ditch 

1. Temperature - Summer 2. Flow Modification 

1. Rearing 64oF (17.8oC) 

2. No Criteria 

oC = Degrees Celsius oF = Degrees Fahrenheit mg/L = Milligrams per liter or parts per million cfu/100mL = Col

milliliter 
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT 

Prineville Reservoir 

Water quality in Prineville Reservoir is generally good and is suitable for all beneficial uses as 

identified by the state of Oregon. Surface water quality data collected by Reclamation (1978-

1995) indicates that the water quality criteria are met under most conditions. 

Prineville Reservoir surface water temperatures during July and August often exceed the cold 

water aquatic life temperature standard (17.8oC). Reservoir profile data collected during July and 

August of 1985 and 1995 show that there are temperatures less than 17.8o

C in the lower 50 

percent of the reservoir. The temperature cycle in the reservoir is typical of reservoirs in Oregon. 

During the spring, the reservoir has a relatively uniform vertical temperature profile. During the 

summer, the epilimnion is generally warm, turbulent, and well mixed. The hypolimnion is cold 

and relatively undisturbed. As the surface water cools during the fall, the reservoir turns over, 

returning to a near uniform temperature profile. 

Increased turbidity in the reservoir is from two major sources: the reservoir proper and the 

watershed. Camp Creek, Bear Creek, Eagle Creek, Lost Creek, Klootchman Creek, Newsome 

Creek, and the Upper Crooked River were all shown to contain a high amount of suspended 

montmorillonite clays (OSU 1976). Since 1960, the estimated average annual rate of reservoir 

capacity lost to sediment accumulation is 122.3 acre-feet. This represents a 2.96 percent loss in 

reservoir volume (Reclamation 1999). Upstream land use practices including logging, road 

building, and livestock grazing contribute to erosion in the watershed. Wind induced waves and 

boat wakes also contribute to increased reservoir and down stream turbidity by eroding and 

resuspending shoreline sediments. 

Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are available in sufficient quantities to support plant growth 

in the reservoir indicating a potential for algal blooms and eutrophic conditions. It is suspected 

that turbid conditions in the reservoir reduce light penetration to the extent that photosynthethic 

activity and plant growth are limited. This is supported by the low concentrations of chlorophyll 

a and minimal dissolved oxygen depletion in the lower levels of the reservoir during the summer 

months (ODFW 1996). Dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoir decrease somewhat during July 

and August, but not to the levels that would be indicative of eutrophic conditions. 

-5-
Crooked River below Arthur R. Bowman Dam 

Water released through Bowman Dam is of suitable quality to support beneficial uses. On 

occasion during periods of high flow, total dissolved gas levels rise above 110 percent and may 

cause some gas bubble disease in the rainbow trout population in the Crooked River below 

Bowman Dam. Total dissolved gas below Bowman Dam will be addressed through Oregon’s 

TMDL process in 2005. 

Turbidity in Prineville Reservoir is noticeable downstream of Bowman Dam, especially when 

irrigation releases begin in the spring. Primary sources of turbidity and sedimentation include 

land management activities upstream of Prineville Reservoir and wave action within the reservoir. 

The stream flow regime is sufficient to transport the undesirable finer sediment through the 

Crooked River system. Turbidity levels decline as the irrigation season progresses. 

Large diversions from the Crooked River lead to low flow in the river during the irrigation 

season. This reduced flow along with high air temperature and lack of riparian vegetation results 

in elevated stream temperature below the Prineville valley. Sedimentation, streambank erosion, 

and nutrient loading in the lower stretches of the Crooked River result from land practices and 

agricultural return flows. Nutrient concentrations in the Lower Crooked River near Terrebonne 

are sufficient to allow excessive algal growth to occur. Opal Springs provides dilution flows to 

the Crooked River upstream from its confluence with Lake Billy Chinook. 

Ochoco Reservoir 

Water quality in Ochoco Reservoir is suitable to support the beneficial uses identified by the state 

of Oregon. Historical data show thermal stratification and some dissolved oxygen depletion in 

Ochoco Reservoir during the summer months. Generally the reservoir fully mixes in the fall, 

resulting in uniform temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations through the reservoir 

profile. During low flow years, the reservoir may be drafted to low levels to meet irrigation 

demands thus reducing the amount of cool water in the hypolimnion. 

Ochoco Creek below Ochoco Dam 

Ochoco Dam release temperature increases in the late summer when the reservoir is at low levels. 

In most years, except dry water years, release temperatures meet the Oregon temperature standard 

for salmonid rearing. Crooked River basin streams monitored for temperature between 1997 and 

1998 as part of the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) 

project showed elevated temperatures. Additional monitoring and correlation work is needed to 

identify specific causes of the elevated stream temperatures downstream of Ochoco Dam. 

-6-
DESCHUTES PROJECT 

Crane Prairie Reservoir 

Crane Prairie Reservoir water quality currently supports the beneficial uses as identified by the 

state of Oregon. Limited water quality data for Crane Prairie Reservoir indicate that the reservoir 

exhibits weak thermal stratification with minimal dissolved oxygen depletion. Some data suggest 

eutrophic conditions, while others suggest a healthy reservoir system. When the reservoir is 

drafted to low levels during the summer, often during low water years, release temperatures often 

exceed 17.8o

C. 

Average loss due to seepage between 1939 and 1950 at Crane Prairie Reservoir is approximately 

60,000 acre-feet per year or 83 cfs. Depending on the stage of the reservoir, the rate of loss 

ranges from 30 to 135 cfs. USGS estimates that some of the seepage returns to the Deschutes 

River through springs three to four miles downstream of Crane Prairie Dam along what is now an 

arm of Wickiup Reservoir. Some of the seepage loss may contribute to the regional groundwater 

flow system and likely benefits downstream water quality. 

Wickiup Reservoir 

The primary water supply to Wickiup Reservoir is Crane Prairie Reservoir and springs. 

Historical water quality data indicate that mild algal growth may occur in the reservoir during the 

later part of summer. Water quality within Wickiup Reservoir currently supports beneficial uses 

identified by the state of Oregon. 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam 

The segment of the Deschutes River from below Wickiup Dam to the Central Oregon Canal is 

included on Oregon’s 303(d) list for turbidity, sedimentation, and dissolved oxygen. Increases in 

turbidity occur when irrigation water deliveries from Wickiup Dam begin in the spring and 

decrease as the irrigation season progresses. These spring irrigation releases tend to erode the 

loose soil in the bed and banks of the stream resulting in increased turbidity level. These loose 

soils are caused by frost heave conditions during the winter months. Turbidity in the midsummer to fall is likely from algae blooms in Wickiup Reservoir. Potential sources of pollutants 

to the Deschutes River include residential and commercial development, failing septic systems, 

recreation, and forestry and agricultural land use practices. 

Some reduced dissolved oxygen levels have been observed in the Deschutes River (RM 191.7, 

ODEQ Site 402363) between October and July. A minimum concentration of 7.3 mg/L was 

detected between water year 1985 and 1995. A concentration of 11.0 mg/L has been identified by 

the state of Oregon for protection of salmonid spawning. Sedimentation (collection of fines in 

-7-
spawning gravels that limit embryo survival rates for trout), has been identified as an impairment 

in the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam to Central Oregon Canal. 

In the reaches of the Deschutes River just upstream of Lake Billy Chinook, flows are greatly 

influenced by groundwater. A USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report (WRI 97-4233) 

describes the stream flow in the lower reaches of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers above Lake 

Billy Chinook to be dominated by groundwater discharge from April through November 

(Caldwell 1998). The groundwater inflow affects the water chemistry of the Deschutes River. 

The USGS concluded that, based on specific conductance, the initial gains in the Deschutes River 

flow (RM 138 to 134) are probably due to groundwater flowing from the southeast or east, 

whereas the most significant gains (RM 134 to 123) are dominated by the discharge of 

groundwater with lower dissolved solids concentrations flowing from the south or west (Caldwell 

1998). The primary sources of this groundwater flow are Deschutes River losses in the upper 

reaches, canal seepage, and deep percolation of water applied to irrigated lands. 

Water quality in the Pelton-Round Butte Project reservoirs is generally good, even though natural 

phosphorous and silicon levels from local geology and introduced nitrogen from upstream 

activities create seasonal algal blooms that some what degrade reservoir water quality. The 

reservoirs act as a nutrient sink for the upper and middle Deschutes River subbasins and the 

Crooked River subbasin. Natural phosphorus is associated with the geology of the watershed, 

especially in the Metolius River subbasin. Although upstream uses adversely influence the 

quality of water in the middle Deschutes and lower Crooked Rivers, these subbasins contribute 

generally fair to good water quality to Lake Billy Chinook because of groundwater recharge 

upstream of the lake in both subbasins. 

Water quality of the inflows, Deschutes, Metolius, and Crooked Rivers, to Lake Billy Chinook is 

altered before being released to the lower Deschutes River by impoundment and the operation of 

the Pelton-Round Butte Project Dams. Water quality below Lake Billy Chinook is driven by 

operation of the dams in the Pelton Round Butte Project. The river immediately below the 

Pelton-Round Butte Project experiences low dissolved oxygen concentrations and modified 

temperature because of the hydroelectric project operations and influence of its reservoirs. 

Higher summer water temperatures are also influenced by ambient air temperatures in the river 

canyon. Sediment sources in the lower channel are limited to channel beds and banks and 

tributary inflows. The Deschutes River below the White River confluence is limited in pH and 

temperature. 

Haystack Reservoir 

Haystack Reservoir serves as a reregulating reservoir for the lower part of the Deschutes Project. 

Water quality within the reservoir is suitable for the agricultural uses and the rainbow trout that 

are stocked annually in the reservoir. 

-8-
WAPINITIA PROJECT 

Clear Lake and Clear Creek below Wasco Dam 

Source water for Clear Lake is snow melt from Mount Hood. Generally the water quality is good, 

but runoff from Mt. Hood carries a large sediment load. Reservoirs in this area collect the 

phosphorus and store a portion of this natural phosphorus within the consolidated sediments, thus 

acting as a phosphorus sink. Water quality in the tributaries and the lower Deschutes River is 

good. 

Water provided to the Wapinitia Project from Clear Lake usually uses the entire amount of 

storage available each year. Water quality effects of this water delivery on the lower Deschutes 

River is minimal considering water delivered is reused or collected in a pond at the lower end of 

the project and pumped back for reuse. Minimal pollutants from agriculture and private land use 

in the Wapinitia Project area affect the water quality in the lower Deschutes River. 

PROJECT EFFECTS 

Introduction 

The proposed action for this biological assessment is the continuance of operation and 

maintenance of Reclamation project facilities in the Deschutes River basin. For comparison 

purposes, modeled hydrology was completed to show modeled flows in the Deschutes River 

basin at specific points under current operations (with Reclamation) and without Reclamation 

operations, but with the facilities still in place (without). 

Reclamation Storage Reservoirs 

The general operation of the Reclamation storage facilities in the Deschutes River and Crooked 

River basins include storage, delivery, and flood control (formal and informal). Specific 

operation of the Reclamation projects in the Deschutes River and Crooked River basins are 

described in the Operations Description of the Deschutes River Basin Projects report (USBR 

2003). Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Prineville Reservoirs provide most of the flow regulation on 

the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Water quality within the reservoirs is determined, in part, by 

the timing of storage and release operations resulting in changes in reservoir elevations. The 

other component of the reservoir water quality is inflow and land use practices in the watershed 

draining into the reservoirs. 

-9-
Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs 

Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs are operated jointly. Water quality of the inflows to these 

reservoirs is of relatively high quality and providing suitable water quality within the reservoirs. 

Over the summer period when the reservoirs are drafted, the thermal stratification in both 

reservoirs becomes less defined. The average water temperature in the water column becomes 

warmer as the reservoir elevation drops. During the fall or under windy conditions, the reservoir 

will mix from top to bottom resulting in a near uniform temperature in the water column. Under 

certain conditions, natural phosphorus entering the reservoirs and limited nitrogen introduced into 

the system will result in late season algal blooms. The intensity of these blooms is low and likely 

do not cause depleted dissolved oxygen conditions from decaying algae or under ice conditions. 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam (Upper and Middle Deschutes Rivers) 

Water quality in the upper and middle reaches of the Deschutes River is affected by urbanization, 

dam operations, private land use practices, groundwater returns, and Federal and non-Federal 

irrigation diversions and returns. The state of Oregon has identified temperature, turbidity, and 

sedimentation as water quality problems in these two reaches. A 1997 report completed as part of 

the Pelton Round Butte Limnology Study (project number 2030) provides a substantial amount of 

discussion concerning the effects of the major tributaries on the limnology of Lake Billy Chinook, 

Lake Simtustus, and the water quality of the water being released to the lower Deschutes River 

(see Raymond and Eilers 1997). The major tributaries to Lake Billy Chinook are the Crooked 

River, the Deschutes River, and the Metolius River. The report presents an interpretation of data 

collected from July 1994 through October 1996 and associated conclusions. 

Turbidity and sedimentation increases in the Deschutes River between Wickiup Dam and Bend 

are primarily associated with private land use activities and elevated runoff associated with snow 

melt and storm events. Without Reclamation, river flows in the upper and middle Deschutes 

reaches would be higher during snow melt and storm events. These elevated flows would carry 

more sediment in the water column and result in a larger sediment load to the Pelton Round 

Butte Complex. Store and release operations at Reclamation reservoirs in the upper reaches of 

the Deschutes River capture sediment and reduce downstream loads. Under the proposed action, 

reduced flows due to storage operations are not effective in flushing sediment that enters the 

Deschutes River below the Reclamation reservoirs through the Deschutes River system. When 

irrigation releases are made during the early spring, some of the sediment that accumulates in the 

Deschutes River below Reclamation dams during storage operations is transported further 

downstream. 

-10-
Water temperature in the upper and middle reaches of the Deschutes River is primarily affected 

by ambient air temperature and flow. Temperature data gathered (1997 - 2002) from gages in the 

Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam, Benham Falls, and Bend were correlated with mean daily 

flow (cfs) and maximum daily air temperature at Madras, Oregon (Figure A). Variability in daily 

maximum water temperature in the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam is accounted for, nearly 

equally, by flow (r = 0.84) and air temperature (r = 0.83). Periods of high flow below Wickiup 

Dam primarily occur during the irrigation season, when air temperature is at the highest for the 

year, thus resulting in a similar, positive relationship. Daily maximum water temperature below 

Wickiup Dam between 1997 and 2002 reached 19.4o

C (67oF) during the summer months. 

Without Reclamation, flow and temperature patterns at the upper Deschutes River gage below 

Wickiup would be much different than under the proposed action hydrograph, which is defined 

by store and release operations. Temperature of the release water is dependent upon the elevation 

of the outlets, ambient air temperature at the monitoring location, and thermal stratification within 

the reservoir. Under the proposed action, flows are higher during the irrigation season (May 

through September). This additional flow increases the time it takes for the water temperature to 

warm to an equilibrium condition with the ambient air temperature during the summer months. 

Flow in the Deschutes River between Bend and Steelhead Falls is reduced by upstream diversions 

during the irrigation season. With this large reduction in flow, water temperature in this reach is 

strongly correlated with air temperature (r = 0.91) (Figure A). Limited riparian shading along 

with reduced flow in this reach (Bend to Steelhead Falls) likely intensifies the diel temperature 

pattern. However, groundwater recharge to the Deschutes River (below RM 136) provides 

additional flow and rapid cooling before the water enters Lake Billy Chinook. 

Effects of Upstream Deschutes River Activities on Lake Billy Chinook and Lower Deschutes 

Study of the thermal regimes in Lake Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus, along with flow and 

mixing studies, were completed as part of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex FERC relicensing 

project. This 1997 report (Raymond and Eilers 1997) on the limnology of Lake Billy Chinook 

and Lake Simtustus clearly explains the thermal and chemical processes occurring in the two 

lakes, how flow from the tributaries mix, and how the temperature and quality of the releases to 

the lower Deschutes River are affected. 

Depletion of dissolved oxygen in Lake Billy Chinook occurs on a seasonal basis, mostly during 

the summer months. This depletion occurs mostly in the deeper water as the result of algae 

respiration in the hypolimnion of Lake Billy Chinook. Because the major tributaries to Lake 

Billy Chinook are well oxygenated, the effects of respiration in the hypolimnion of Lake Billy 

Chinook is mitigated by the infusion at depth of the cooler tributary water. The short residence 

time of Lake Simtustus does not allow enough time for oxygen depletion in the hypolimnion to 

occur (Raymond and Eilers 1997). The 1998 303(d) dissolved oxygen listing in the lower 

-11-
Deschutes River between the Reregulating Dam to the White River is based on 6 of 21 dissolved 

oxygen measurements between October and June (water years 1986 - 1995) were below Oregon’s 

11.0 mg/L or 95 percent saturation salmonid spawning criteria. The minimum dissolved oxygen 

value measured in that period was 8.9 mg/L (86 percent saturation). 

Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are supplied to Lake Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus by 

the tributaries in concentrations that are sufficient for plant growth in both lakes. A comparison 

of phosphorus loads between the major tributaries to Lake Billy Chinook indicated that most of 

the phosphorus appears to be of natural origin. Lake Simtustus has more algal growth due to the 

shallow epilimnion and a large amount of nitrogen load from Willow Creek. One conclusion 

from this study is that both lakes retain water from the most nutrient rich tributaries, the Crooked 

and Deschutes Rivers, in the epilimnion during the summer and discharge cooler, lower nutrient 

water (Raymond and Eilers 1997). 

Historical water temperature data collected at various locations in the Deschutes River were used 

to look at annual water temperature patterns in the Deschutes River. Maximum daily water 

temperature data collected over multiple years were sorted by Julian day then averaged to get an 

average daily maximum temperature (Figures C and D). This information is used to show the 

effects of Reclamation storage, release, and diversion operations in the middle and upper 

Deschutes River and resulting impacts on the lower Deschutes River. 

In 2001, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) contracted Watershed 

Sciences for thermal infrared remote (TIR) sensing to map and assess stream temperatures in the 

Deschutes River basin. The data presented in Figure B is the median, water surface temperature 

of the Deschutes River collected on July 25 and 26, 2001. Although stream temperature changes 

that occur during the course of the temperature survey are not reflected in the longitudinal 

temperature profile, general stream temperature warming and cooling trends are reflected in 

Figure B. An overall warming trend is apparent between RM 167 (near Bend) and 139 (just 

upstream of Odin Falls) with some small cooling stretches. A large drop in surface water 

temperature occurs upstream of Lake Billy Chinook between RM 133 (Lower Bridge) and 128 

(just downstream of Steelhead Falls). ODEQ measured 16 cold water inputs (springs and 

tributaries) between RM 132 and the inlet of Lake Billy Chinook (approximately 14.4 miles). 

-12-
Max Daily Water Temperature versus Max Daily Air Temperature for Three Locations on the 

Deschutes River 

80 

70 

Blw Bend 

y = 0.497x + 20.237 

r = 0.91 

60 

Blw W ickiup 

Water Temperature (F) 50 y = 0.3842x + 25.312 

r = 0.83 

40 

blw Benham Falls 

y = 0.3736x + 26.257 

30 r = 0.87 

20 

10 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

Air Temperature (F) 

Figure A 

-13-
u 

C) ! n+-------+-~~ ~~r-----------------------------1U---- -1 

~ 

:I 

~ ~+-----~r----------- ----------------------------;----- -1 

8. 

~ 18 +--- ------------ r-------~----------------1-----1--1 .. 

1;i 

~ 16 +- -1~-------------- ~._~~~~~---- ----4- ~~-1 <> 

~ 

~ 14+---------------------------------------------~r-4---~ -1 

110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 

Cistance from mouth (miles) 

- Deschutes R. (7126) - Deschutes R. (7125) Bend Reservoir 

Figure B. Median channel temperature versus river mile for the Deschutes River, OR 

from Lake Billy Chinook to the headwaters at Little Lava Lake (7/25/01- 7/26/01). 

 -14-
The water temperature of the Deschutes River above Lake Billy Chinook has a pronounced 

seasonal variation, with the highest temperatures occurring in July and August and the coolest 

temperatures in January. The seasonal trend of water temperature measured just downstream 

from Bend, Oregon closely reflects the seasonality of the air temperature. Maximum water 

temperature just downstream from Bend, Oregon approaches 20oC during the summer period, but 

the inflow of groundwater near Culver reduces the summer maximum water temperature, on 

average, by approximately 3.5o

C. Water temperatures near Culver rarely exceed 15oC during the 

peak summer months. 

Reduced flow near Bend due to diversions may allow water temperatures between Bend and 

Culver to come to equilibrium with the ambient air temperature at a faster rate, but also improves 

the effectiveness of the returning groundwater to cool the flow. If higher flows existed during the 

summer months between Bend and Culver, the resulting temperatures after mixing with 

groundwater returns would likely be warmer due to dilution of cool groundwater returns. 

Groundwater inflow determines the temperature of the Deschutes River immediately upstream 

from Lake Billy Chinook thus the smaller the amount of warm water mixing with the cool 

groundwater, the cooler the Deschutes will be when entering Lake Billy Chinook. 

The Deschutes River temperature immediately below the Pelton Round Butte Complex is 

primarily driven by the operation of the Pelton Round Butte Complex. Historical data indicate 

changes in the timing of annual temperature extremes in the Lower Deschutes River but show 

little change in the magnitude of the extremes (Huntington et al. 1999) (Figure C). Considering 

the travel time in Lake Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus, 66 to 83 days depending on the 

amount of thermal stratification, warm Deschutes River water that enters Lake Billy Chinook 

during the hottest period of the summer does not reach the lower Deschutes until 66 to 83 days 

later. Even when the warmest water is released into the lower Deschutes reach, between late 

August and early October, the amount of natural warming that occurs during a day is reduced, 

thus daily maximums are lower. 

Examination of available water temperature data above and below the Pelton Round Butte 

Complex, indicates that the Deschutes River water temperature between Bend and Culver 

approaches equilibrium with the ambient air temperature quickly due to reduced flow, but 

groundwater returns near Culver provide beneficial cool flows that reduce the Deschutes River 

temperature to levels (around 14o

C) that are generally suitable for salmonids before it enters Lake 

Billy Chinook. Water temperature immediately below the Pelton Round Butte Complex is 

usually suitable for salmonids. The thermal pattern of water temperature for the Deschutes River 

at Culver and at Madras are similar but maximum and minimum water temperatures occur at 

different times of the year due to the hydraulic resident time of the Pelton Round Butte Complex 

(Figure D). 

-15-
Average Daily Maximum Deschutes River Temperature near Madras, Oregon before and after
 

Construction of the Pelton Round Butte Complex
 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

Average Daily Maximum Water Temperature (C)

May 31

August 29 

Pre - PRB Construction 

(1952 - 1956) 

Post PRB Construction 

(1971 - 1988) 

1

316191

121151181211241271301331361 

Julian Day 

Figure C 

-16-
 

 

Average Daily Maximum Deschutes River Temperature
 

above and below Pelton Round Butte Complex
 

(1965 - 1971)
 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

Average Daily Maximum Temperature (C)

May 31

August 29 

Deschutes River near Culver 

Deschutes River near Madras 

1

316191

121151181211241271301331361 

Julian Day 

Figure D 

Below the Pelton Round Butte Complex, the Deschutes River water temperature is cooler during 

peak summer months than it would likely be without the Pelton Round Butte Complex. The 

thermal effects in the lower Deschutes River of the proposed action and other water and land use 

activities on water temperature upstream from the Pelton Round Butte Complex are buffered by 

the groundwater flow above Lake Billy Chinook and operation of the Pelton Round Butte 

Complex. The effects, if any, of Reclamation activities occurring upstream from the Pelton 

Round Butte Complex on the thermal regimes in the lower Deschutes River are not apparent. 

-17-
 -18-
Water Quality Bibliography 

Anderson, C.W. 2000. Framework for the Regional, Coordinated Monitoring in the Middle and 

Upper Deschutes River Basin, Oregon. USGS Open-File Report 00-386. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Portland OR. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 1992. Lower 

Crooked River Wild and Scenic River (Chimney Rock Segment) Management Plan. 

October 1992. Prineville OR. 

Breithaupt, S., T. Khangaonkar, Z. Yang, and C. DeGaspari. 2001. Water Quality Model of 

the Lower Deschutes River. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 

Caldwell, R.R. 1998. Chemical Study of Regional Ground-Water Flow and GroundWater/Surface-Water Interaction in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. USGS WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4233. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland OR. 

Caldwell, R.R. and M. Truini. 1997. Ground-Water and Water-Chemistry Data for the Upper 

Deschutes Basin, Oregon. USGS Open-File Report 97-197. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Portland OR. 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and Portland General Electric. 

June. Final Joint Application Amendment for The Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric 

Project. June 2001. FERC Project Nos. 2030 and 11832. Portland OR. 

Crooked River Watershed Council. 2002. Crooked River Watershed Assessment. July 2002. 

Gannett, M.W., K.E. Lite Jr., D.S. Morgan, and C.A. Collins. 2001. Ground-Water Hydrology 

of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 

00-4162. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland OR. 

Huntington, C., Hardin, T., and R. Raymond. 1999. Water Temperatures in the Deschutes River, 

Oregon. Final Report. 

Khangaonkar, T., Yang, Z., DeGasperi, C., Johnson, P., and C. Sweeney. (ENSR). 1999. 

Preliminary Temperature and Hydrodynamic Modeling of Lake Billy Chinook -

Pelton/Round Butte Hydroelectric Project. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. 1997 - 98 Upper Deschutes R-EMAP 

Temperature Summary. D.G. Mochan. Technical Report Number BIO98-02. Portland 

OR. 

Hubler, S. 1999. Upper Deschutes River basin R-EMAP, 1997 - 1998 Water Chemistry 

Summary. Technical Report BIO99-04. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

Portland OR. 
 

 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Final 1998 Water Quality Limited 

Streams 303(d) List. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Final 2002 Water Quality Limited 

Streams 303(d) List. Not Approved by the EPA as of March 9, 2003. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. DRAFT Upper and Middle Deschutes 

River Basins Watershed Characterization. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Crooked River Fish Plan. Prineville, Oregon. 

Oregon State University. Agricultural Experiment Station. 1976. Soil and Watershed 

Characteristics in Relation to Turbidity of the Prineville Reservoir. Special Report 453. 

February1976. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Hubler, S. 2000. Upper Deschutes River Basin REMAP, 1998-98 Vertebrate Summary. 

Technical Report BIO00-0008. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland 

OR. 

Raymond, R.B. and J.M. Eilers. 1997. Final Report on the Limnology of Lake Billy Chinook 

and Lake Simtustus, Oregon, Pelton Round Butte Limnology Study. E&S Environmental 

Chemistry. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Raymond, R.B., and J.M. Eilers. 1999. Lower Deschutes River Water Quality Studies. 

Raymond, R.B., Eilers, J., Bernert, J., and K. Vache. 1998. Lower Deschutes River Studies 

Water Quality and Biota - 1997 Final Report. April 1998. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1980? Ochoco Reservoir Temperature Study. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1981. Lower Deschutes Basin, Oregon; Appraisal: 

Volume I Supporting Data: Water Quality. September 1981. Salem OR. 

Reclamation (U. S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1993. Upper Deschutes River Basin Water 

Conservation Project, Oregon. Surface Water Quality Study Report. November 1993. 

Denver CO. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1999. Prineville Reservoir, 1998 Sedimentation 

Survey. March 1999. Denver CO. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2003. Operations Description of the Deschutes 

River Basin Projects. Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho. 

Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and Oregon Water Resources Department. 1997. 

Special Report: Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study. April 1997. 

Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties OR. 
 

State of Oregon. 2002. Oregon Administrative Rules. Division 41. Accessed May 14, 2002. 

State of Oregon. 2002. Second Unified State Position Pelton- Round Butte Hydroelectric 

Project, Oregon State License Nos. 217 and 222, Federal License No. 2030. March 

2002. 

U.S. Forest Service (Deschutes National Forest), Oregon State Parks, and National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. 1996. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic 

Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan. July 1996. 

U.S. Forest Service (Deschutes National Forest), Oregon State Parks, and National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. 1995. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. September 1995. 

Watershed Sciences. 2002. Aerial Surveys in the Deschutes River Basin, Thermal Infrared and 

Color Videography. Report to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

February 11, 2002. 

Yang, Z., T. Khangaonkar, C. DeGaspari, and S. Breithaupt. ???? Water Quality Model of 

Lake Simtustus. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 

— APPENDIX C— 

Extended Deschutes Surface Water 

Distribution Model – Users Manual 

Version October 31, 2002 

 

 

 

 

Extended Deschutes Surface Water Distribution Model: 

Development and Assumptions 

Leslie Stillwater, Hydraulic Engineer 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Boise, ID 

January 2003 

1. BACKGROUND 

The Extended Deschutes Surface Water Distribution Model (Extended Model) was created to 

analyze flow scenarios for the Deschutes River Basin BA. The Extended Model combined the 

products of three separate models and studies: 1) The Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin 

Surface Water Distribution Model, 2) The Crooked River Surface Water Distribution Model, and 

3) a spreadsheet analysis of the White River. Model output reflects the October 31, 2002 version 

of the model. 

The Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution Model was developed by the 

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The scope of this model extends from the 

headwaters of the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers to the Deschutes River Below Bend 

(RM 164.3). Diversions and creek inflows as far downstream as Tumalo Creek (RM 160.2) are 

also provided in the model. Documentation for this model is found in the Upper and Middle 

Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution Model.1 This model was extended by Reclamation 

to the Deschutes River near Madras (RM 100.1). 

The Crooked River Surface Water Distribution Model was developed by Reclamation from 1997 

through 2001. The scope of the model is from the Crooked River above Prineville Dam (RM 

70.5) and from Ochoco Creek above Ochoco Dam (RM 10.6) to the Crooked River Near 

Terrebonne gage (RM 27.7). Modeled Terrebonne flows were incorporated into the Extended 

Deschutes Model. Documentation for this model is included in Section 2, “Crooked River 

Surface Water Distribution Model.” 

A White River spreadsheet analysis determined effects from the operation of the Wapinitia 

Project. A discussion of this analysis is contained in Effects of Wasco Dam Storage on White 

River Flows.2 

1

 La Marche, J. 2001. Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution Model. Surface Water Open 

File Report #SW02-001. Oregon Water Resources Department. Available in PDF. 

2

 Mellema, M. 2002. Effects of Wasco Dam Storage on White River Flows. Unpublished Report. U.S. Bureau of
 

Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional office. 

-1-
 

 

 

Flow effects at the Deschutes River at Moody (RM 1.4) were determined by applying the 

calculated flow effects due to the Wapinitia Project and the modeled flow effects at the 

Deschutes River Near Madras to historic (observed) flows Near Moody. 

2. CROOKED RIVER SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION MODEL 

The model was constructed using Modsim.1

 The model was developed to demonstrate 

Prineville and Ochoco Reservoir contents, irrigation deliveries, and Crooked River flows that 

would be likely to occur under alternate allocation and distribution scenarios. Historic monthly 

inflows to Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs for the years 1962-1999 enter the reservoirs and are 

distributed according to defined operations criteria. 

Due to the lack of diversion data, modeled requests for diversions are based on estimated crop 

irrigation requirements and distribution and delivery efficiencies. If adequate flow is not 

available or if the diverter does not have a storage or natural flow right to that water, the full 

request can not be diverted, and a shortage occurs. 

The Crooked River Surface Water Distribution Model was used to determine surface water and 

groundwater contributions from the Crooked River into Lake Billy Chinook. The modeled 

contributions were incorporated as gains and losses into the Extended Deschutes Basin Surface 

Water Distribution Model. 

The following discussion describes the assumptions used in developing the Crooked River 

Surface Water Distribution Model and in extending the Upper and Middle Deschutes Surf ace 

Water Model. 

Model Scope 

The most upstream nodes of the model include inflow to Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs. The 

most downstream node of the model is the Terrebonne gage (RM 27.7). 

Gains Data Set and Calibration 

Gains above Prineville Reservoir: The monthly gains (reservoir inflows) for water years 1962 

through 1999 were estimated from a balance around the reservoir, so that: 

gains = S(f) - S(i) + Rel + evap [AF/mo] 

1

 Modsim is a general, multi-purpose, multi-reservoir water allocation and simulation tool 

originally developed by Dr. John Labadie at Colorado State University, and since 1994 

developed cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation. Documentation and the model can be 

downloaded from http://modsim.engr.colostate.edu. 

-2-
 

where S(f) and S(i) are final and initial end-of-month storage values, Rel is the total monthly 

release, and evap is the total monthly evaporation. 

Gains above Ochoco Reservoir: Gains above Ochoco Reservoir were calculated using a balance 

around the reservoir, similar to the calculation for gains above Prineville Reservoir. Missing 

gains (when all the data necessary for a balance were not available) were developed by using 

gains from similar water supply years. 

Post-dam Historic Regulated Flows for the Crooked River Near Terrebonne: Flows at 

Terrebonne were required to calibrate the model and to develop the gains to the Crooked River 

below the Crooked River Feed Canal and gains to the Ochoco Feed Canal. 

Estimated and observed historic flows at Terrebonne were developed using the following 

approaches: 

$ Water Years (WY) 1968-1973 and WY 1994-2001: Observed flows 

$ WY 1962-1967 and WY 1974-1993: Monthly flows at Terrebonne were estimated using 

a linear correlation to the Crooked River below Opal Springs. 

Gains below the Crooked River Feed Canal and Gains to the Ochoco Feed Canal: A calibration 

model was used to determine the gains below the Crooked River Feed Canal and the gains to the 

Ochoco Feed Canal so that observed and estimated flows at Terrebonne were perfectly met. The 

modeled gains represent the additional reach flow required to satisfy nearly all the diversion 

demands (based on estimated diversion rates for a dry year) while meeting historic reservoir 

target contents and the observed and estimated historic flows at Terrebonne. 

Originally, gains were calculated by subtracting observed Terrebonne flows (WY 1968-1973 and 

WY 1994-2001) from the flows below Bowman Dam and the flows in Ochoco Creek, and then 

attempting to correlate these gains to the gains above Prineville Reservoir. The correlation was 

poor. Since only 10 years of observed Terrebonne flows were available, a better approach was to 

model the gains in this reach. 

Calibration: Although diversion data are not available and downstream flow data at Terrebonne 

are sparse, a calibration model was constructed using the gains described above. Modeled 

reservoir end-of-month contents compared favorably to historic values. Flows below the 

Crooked River Feed Canal and Ochoco Creek were consistent with anecdotal information. 

Flows at Terrebonne, due to the nature of their construction, calibrate successfully with existing 

Terrebonne flow data. 

-3-
 

Natural Flow Rights and Reservoir Accrual 

Prineville Reservoir is allowed to accrue with a 1914 water right up to a seasonal capacity of 

148,633 acre-feet. Ochoco Reservoir is allowed to accrue with a 1914 water right up to a 

seasonal capacity of 45,200 acre-feet. 

Natural flow rights to the Crooked River Feed Canal, Rice Baldwin, Peoples, Central, Low Line, 

and Rye Grass Canals are modeled as senior to Prineville and Ochoco Reservoirs’ accrual rights. 

North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) is allowed to pump Crooked River water as supplemental 

water for Deschutes lands with a 1955 water right and as water for Crooked River lands with a 

1968 water right. The following table shows the modeled natural flow rights. 

Modeled Natural Flow Rights (in cubic feet per second (cfs)) 

Crooked River Feed Canal 400 cfs 

(limited by 160 cfs canal capacity) 

Rice Baldwin Canal 7 cfs 

Peoples Canal 19 cfs 

Central Canal 7 cfs 

Low Line Canal 5.5 cfs 

Rye Grass 8 cfs 

NUID pumps 200 cfs 

(two rights, limited by historic pumping rates) 

Diversion Requirements 

Measured flow data which could be used to determine diversion rates for OID and other Ochoco 

Creek and Crooked River irrigators do not exist. Measured diversions at the Crooked River Feed 

Canal reflect the need to maintain head at Barnes Butte Pumping Plant, so these flows include 

spills to Ochoco Creek and subsequent diversion to Rye Grass Canal. In addition, water wasted 

to McKay and Lytle Creeks, which had been measured at the Crooked River Feed Canal 

diversion, is credited back to Ochoco Irrigation District’s (OID) Prineville Reservoir storage 

account. For these reasons, measured flows at the Crooked River Feed Canal do not reflect 

actual irrigation and diversion requirements or reservoir duty. Therefore, the diversion 

requirements for irrigated lands were calculated by estimating the acres irrigated and assuming 

irrigation requirements, distribution efficiencies, and application efficiencies. The following 

section describes the process used to develop the diversion requirements. 

-4-
 

 

 

Acres Irrigated 

Total irrigated acres were determined from the primary, supplemental, and natural flow-served 

lands on the Project Proof Survey,2

 and verified by comparison to the allowable acres and duty in 

the contracts; comparison to the natural flow rights; comparison to earlier estimates in the Draft 

Ochoco Irrigation District Water Management/Conservation Plan3

 (Draft Water Conservation 

Plan); and conversations with OWRD (Bob Main, former Regional Manager and Kyle Gorman, 

Regional Manager) and OID (Hugh Moore, former Manager). OID was determined to irrigate 

20,148 acres in an average year. Other irrigators, including other spaceholders in Prineville 

Reservoir and those served by natural flow rights, were determined to irrigate an additional 3,221 

acres. 

Once irrigated lands were identified and incorporated into the calibration model for the Crooked 

River Model, it was demonstrated that modeled flows at the Crooked River Feed Canal 

successfully simulated Crooked River Feed Canal observed flows; modeled flows at Barnes 

Butte Pumping Plant successfully simulated anecdotal pumping rates; and modeled spills from 

the Barnes Butte Pumping Plant in Ochoco Creek successfully simulated anecdotal flows. 

Irrigation Requirement 

An annual irrigation requirement (IR) of 1.945 acre-feet/acre for a crop mixture of primarily 

mint, alfalfa, hay, and grass pasture was used.4,5 The irrigation requirement is the crop evapotranspiration less the effective precipitation. The irrigation requirement is not the diversion 

requirement, but is just one component of the diversion requirement. A monthly distribution of 

the annual irrigation requirement per acre was applied as shown in the following table6 . 

Monthly Irrigation Requirement (acre-feet/acre) 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep WY 

.035 0 0 0 0 0 .084 .276 .409 .602 .332 .205 1.945 

2

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1980. Project Proof Survey Maps. 

3

 H&R Engineering. 1999. Draft Ochoco Irrigation District Water 

Management/Conservation Plan. Prepared for OID. Cover letter dated March 30, 1999. 

4

 Ibid. 

5

 Ross, Elwin. 1998. Facsimile dated August 18, 1998. H&R Engineering, Redmond, 

Oregon. 

6

 Ibid. 

-5-
The diversion required to satisfy the irrigation requirement also includes deep percolation to 

groundwater, surface runoff, evaporation, and distribution losses. Modeled diversion 

requirements are based on data collected from the 1992-1997 irrigation seasons and summarized 

in the Draft Water Conservation Plan (H&R Engineering 1999). Although the analysis was 

performed using data for OID lands, the assumptions were assumed to apply project-wide. 

The following table summarizes the delivery analysis from the Draft Water Conservation Plan. 

Delivery Analysis from Draft Water Conservation Plan 

Flows 

(Average from 1992-1997) Comments 

Diversion (from records) 83,742 AF 

Spill 27,960 AF Spill occurs at Barnes Butte Pumping Plant and 

is not considered 'diverted' water. 

Adjusted Diversion 

(diversion - spill) 55,782 AF 

Delivery (from records) 43,000 AF 

Distribution Losses 

(adjusted diversion - delivery) 12,782 AF 

Distribution Efficiency 77 percent Distribution efficiency is (1.0 - distribution losses / 

adjusted diversion). 

Crop Water Use, IR 

(based on 20,306 acres irrigated) 39,495 AF 

The value of 20,148 used in the model is a more 

recent estimate, although the difference is 

insignificant. 

On-farm Losses 

(delivery - IR) 3,505 AF 

On-farm Efficiency 92 percent On-farm efficiency is (1.0 - on-farm losses / 

delivery) 

Given the above efficiencies, for every 1.0 acre-feet of irrigation requirement, 1.41 acre-feet is 

required for diversion in an average water supply year: 

1.0 /(.77 * .92) = 1.41. 

-6-
 

Diversion requests are aggregated in the model based on points of delivery and application. The 

diversion request (DIV) for each block of aggregated diversions for an average water supply year 

is then: 

DIV = 1.41 @ IR @ ACRES 

where DIV is the monthly required diversion, IR is the monthly irrigation requirement in acrefeet/acre, and ACRES is the estimated acres of land irrigated. In the model, the diversion 

required is adjusted up or down based on water supply year type. 

Estimated Distribution of Losses 

Surface 

Irrigation 

Sprinkler 

Irrigation 

Sprinkler + 

Surface 

Acres-> 2015 18135 20150 

Percent of delivery that goes to: 

Deep Percolation 25.0 20.0 20.5 

Runoff 25.0 2.5 

Evaporation 15.0 13.5 

(1-sum) 50.0 65.0 63.5 

Calculation of Diversions and Returns Based on IR 

Multiply diversion by ... x y to get...... to get...... 

Diversion (calculated) 1.000 55782 141.3 

Distribution Loss 0.229 12782 32.4 

Delivery to Farm 0.771 43000 108.9 

Used for IR (given) 0.771 0.918 39495 100.0 

Deep Percolation 0.771 0.205 8815 22.3 

Runoff 0.771 0.025 1075 2.7 

Evaporation 0.771 0.135 5805 14.7 

-7-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Estimated Distribution of Returns 

 % of DIV which returns in...... 

Current 

Month 

Next 2 

Months Never Total 

x*y X*y x*y 

Diversion 

Distribution Loss 0.229 

Delivery to Farm 

Used for IR 

Deep Percolation 0.158 

Runoff 0.019 

Evaporation 0.104 

Sum-> 0.248 0.158 0.104 0.511 

0.487 0.310 0.204 

Return Flows and Spills 

For the purposes of this study, "return flows" refer to that portion of water diverted from the 

Crooked River which returns to the river via surface and subsurface pathways. This includes 

some channel loss, surface runoff, infiltration and seepage from irrigated lands, drainage, and 

spill (with the exception of Barnes Butte Pumping Plant spill) which occur after the water has 

been diverted. Return flows are made available downstream as natural flow. 

Crooked River Feed Canal diversions in excess of the capacity of the Barnes Butte Pumping 

Plant (spills) are modeled to return to the Crooked River immediately and are then made 

available downstream as natural flow. 

Total return flows are assumed to be very nearly the diversion minus the irrigation requirement 

and evaporation losses. Modeled return flows are distributed over a three month period by the 

heuristic: 33 percent of the diversion returns in the first month after diversion, 16 percent in the 

second month after diversion, and 7 percent in the third month after diversion. These diversion 

returns were used in model calibration. 

-8-
OID provided measured return flows for the 1994-1997 irrigation seasons. Assuming the 

measurements captured return flows from the Crooked River Feed, Ochoco Feed, and Rye Grass 

Canals and returns occurred over a three month period, these measured returns accounted for 22 

percent of diversions (minus the spills at Barnes Butte Pumping Plant). OWRD (Kyle Gorman 

and Bob Main) estimated return flows to be about 35 percent. However, in calibrating to the few 

years of data available for the Terrebonne gage (1968-73 and 1994-1997), the best calibration 

was achieved when 56 percent of all diversions returned upstream of the gage, lagged over 3 

months (33 percent in the first month after diversion, 16 percent in the second month, 7 percent 

in the third month). This value is consistent with the Draft Water Conservation Plan if the total 

diversion minus irrigation requirement and evaporation is assumed to return over a three month 

period. This is the "high end" of the return flow estimate. 

Dry River contributes runoff from Central Oregon Irrigation District above the Terrebonne gage. 

This is not measured and was not estimated for the model. Flows entering the Crooked River 

from Dry River would be accounted as return flows from Crooked River diversions in the return 

flow calculations described above, introducing unknown error. 

Minimum Instream Flows 

The model requests a 75 cfs minimum instream flow below Prineville Reservoir throughout the 

year, with the exception that 35 cfs is requested in very dry water supply years. If water is not 

already flowing in the reach to meet downstream demands and if natural flow is not available to 

increase flows to 75 cfs, releases are made from Prineville Reservoir to meet the minimum 

streamflow target. 

Downstream at the NUID’s Crooked River pumps, the model requires a 10 cfs minimum 

streamflow to pass the pumps so that the Crooked River is not dried up. 

Spaceholder's Contracts 

Current contracted space and uncontracted space in Prineville Reservoir is modeled as follows: 

OID contracted space 57,893 acre-feet 

Other contracted space 10,389 acre-feet 

Total contracted space 68,282 acre-feet 

Uncontracted space 80,351 acre-feet 

Total active storage 148,633 acre-feet 

-9-
 

 

 

 

NUID Crooked River Pumping Requests 

Modeled requests for Crooked River pumping by NUID uses historic measured values for 1977 

through 1997. For years where historic data does not exist (1942-1976), modeled pumping rates 

are the average of the historic values. NUID relies on its natural flow right of 200 cfs (priority 

dates of 1955 and 1968), but is limited by a 150 cfs pumping capacity. 

Channel Losses 

Channel losses in the Crooked River between Bowman Dam and the Crooked River Feed Canal 

diversion were modeled as 8.5 percent. Channel losses in the Crooked River below the Crooked 

River Feed Canal diversion were modeled as zero. 7 

Rule Curves and Flood Space 

Section 7 flood control rule curves for Prineville Reservoir are applied in the model. Rule curves 

dictate target end-of-month contents based on current reservoir contents and forecast inflow. In 

the model, forecast inflow is a "perfect" forecast, because the model knows the inflow which 

occurred following each historic month of record. 

Recreation Targets 

Prineville Reservoir September end-of-month storage contents of about 100,000 acre-feet was 

selected as the recreation target.10 This volume maintains boat access at Prineville Reservoir 

State Park. The historic 1961-1997 average September contents for Prineville Reservoir are 

92,116 acre-feet and maximum contents are 118,400 acre-feet. 

Special Modeling Considerations 

Crooked River Feed Canal Diversions 

OID’s preferred operation is to divert 160 cfs from the Crooked River into the Crooked River 

Feed Canal at all times to keep the pumps at Barnes Butte Pumping Plant running efficiently. 

OID uses a 400 cfs senior natural flow right and stored water to maintain this flow. The 

modeling goal is to divert 160 cfs when it is available in right and divert less when water is not 

available. This is accomplished by using a flow-through demand node which draws water from 

the Crooked River with two distinct rights. The first right is a very senior 400 cfs natural flow 

right. Once this water flows through to the head of the feed canal, it is distributed in the natural 

flow step to demands which are served with natural flow links with Unit Costs of -1. 

7

 OWRD. 1991. Memo from OWRD to Prineville Reservoir Users Re: Crooked River 

Losses. August 16, 1991.

10 Moore, Hugh. 1997. Personal Communication. Former Manager, Ochoco Irrigation District. 

-10-
 

 

If the natural flow right is not enough to meet the 160 cfs request, another link (“force 160cfs”) 

draws water out of Prineville Reservoir with a Unit Cost of -90,000 during the storage step (the 

Stg Flow Only flag is set to 1, so the link only opens during the storage step). Although the 

water which flows through the “force 160cfs” link is not debited from a storage account here, 

once it flows through to the head of the feed canal, it is distributed through storage ownership 

links serving the demand nodes on the canal and then debited from the appropriate accounts. 

Return Flow Credits from the Crooked River Feed Canal 

Although the Crooked River Feed Canal requests 160 cfs to keep the pumps operating 

efficiently, the capacity of the pumps is only 140 cfs (and the requests for water in this portion of 

the system might be even less), so water spills into Ochoco Creek and eventually back to the 

Crooked River. OWRD and OID have agreed to credit this stored water back to OID's account. 

In the model, the water spills back to Ochoco Creek via the link “BarnesBPP spill.” Although 

spilled, this water is still considered Prineville Reservoir storage water. 

Several demand nodes on Ochoco Creek and the Rye Grass Canal receive Prineville Reservoir 

water only by utilizing this spill, but also have access to Ochoco Reservoir water. When a 

storage ownership link opens up during the storage step, it pulls water from the reservoirs 

according to the reservoir priorities. So it is possible for the Prineville ownership links which 

serve these demands to draw water from Ochoco Reservoir while debiting that water (in the 

accounting) from Prineville Reservoir. Therefore, the Prineville storage ownership links to the 

Ochoco Creek and Rye Grass Canal demand nodes are limited by the spill. This is accomplished 

by constructing the “P2spill” network which watches the spill. The net result is that the total of 

the flows through the Prineville storage ownership links serving the demand nodes on Ochoco 

Creek and the Rye Grass Canal can not exceed the spill from the pumping plant. 

3. EXTENDED DESCHUTES BASIN SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION MODEL 

The Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution Model was extended from 

its original termination point below Bend so that Deschutes River flows as far downstream as 

Madras could be modeled. This was achieved by combining output from the Crooked River 

Surface Water Distribution Model described earlier and the observed flows from the Metolius 

River and other contributing tributaries to the Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water 

Distribution Model. 

Groundwater Gains 

Diversions above the gage at the Deschutes River below Bend (14070500, Hydromet station 

code DEBO), contribute to the groundwater gains to the Deschutes River below Bend, the 

Crooked River below Terrebonne, and Lake Billy Chinook. However, groundwater gains to that 

region developed from observed data do not appropriately represent gains which would occur if 

modeled diversions above DEBO differ significantly from observed diversions. The Deschutes 

River basin BA studies required simulating current conditions (the “with Reclamation” scenario) 

-11-
 

as well as removing Reclamation operations (the “without Reclamation” scenario). Since 

diversions above DEBO differ from observed diversions in both scenarios, the model needed to 

respond by adjusting groundwater gains accordingly. 

The best approach for determining groundwater returns due to diversions above DEBO would be 

to develop response functions based on the information compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS).8 Budget and time constraints did not allow for this arrangement. Reclamation 

examined two potential approaches. 

The first approach was developed by OWRD, with input from the USGS, to adjust groundwater 

gains to the Lake Billy Chinook region when modeled diversions differ from observed 

diversions. The OWRD method takes half of the difference between the modeled and observed 

diversions, applies a 5-year running average, and returns those averages as positive or negative 

groundwater gains to the Lake Billy Chinook region. The calculation of the difference in 

diversions and the change in groundwater gains is performed outside the model. This approach 

produces a very flat distribution. 

The second approach models half of the flow diverted above DEBO to return as groundwater 

gains to locations above and below the Deschutes River Near Culver gage, to Opal Springs on 

the Crooked River, and to Lake Billy Chinook. This value is lagged to return to the river 

throughout the next 10 months in 10 percent increments. This method results in groundwater 

gains more closely reflecting anecdotal information about gains expected from irrigation 

diversions above DEBO. This “10 month flat lag” approach was used in the Extended Deschutes 

Model. However, this method may be conservative in estimating the positive effects of 

Reclamation activities on late summer flows. 

Groundwater gains due to diversions above DEBO return to the river at several locations above 

Madras. Because model output was required at the Deschutes River Near Culver (RM 120.0), it 

was necessary to determine what percentage of those gains return above and what percentage 

below the Culver gage. To determine this percentage, a calibration run was performed, allowing 

the model to select the return location based on the need to perfectly achieve historic flows at 

Culver. In general, it appeared that about 84 percent of the groundwater gains due to diversions 

above DEBO return above the Culver gage. The remaining 16 percent was allowed to return 

below the Culver gage to the Crooked River and Lake Billy Chinook. 

8

 Gannett, Marshall, Kenneth E. Lite Jr., David S, Morgan, and Charles S. Collins. 2001. 

Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. USGS, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4162. 

Gannett, Marshall. 2001. Personal Communications. USGS. 

-12-
In addition to the gains already developed for the Upper and Middle Deschutes Surface Water 

Distribution Model, gains and losses for the extended model were developed from the observed 

flows at: 

The Deschutes River Near Culver (RM 120.0) 

The Metolius River confluence (RM 111.3) 

The Crooked River Below Opal Springs (RM 6.7) 

The Deschutes River Near Madras (RM 100.1) 

Contributions from the Crooked River 

Inflows to Lake Billy Chinook from the Crooked River were determined by a run of the Crooked 

River model (described in Section 2, Crooked River Surface Water Distribution Model). The 

Crooked River model extends only to the Crooked River at Terrebonne (RM 27.7). Below 

Terrebonne, significant groundwater gains from the Deschutes River basin enter the Crooked 

River at Opal Springs. 

However, it is not necessary to model flows between Terrebonne and the Crooked River below 

Opal Springs (RM 6.7, near where the Crooked River enters Lake Billy Chinook), as long as the 

change in the contributions from the Crooked River to Lake Billy Chinook can be determined. 

Consider the water budget equations for historic and modeled scenarios: 

opalHIST = terreHIST + GWHIST + other 

opalMODEL = terreMODEL + GWMODEL + other 

where terre represents Crooked River flows at Terrebonne, opal represents Crooked River flows 

below Opal Springs, GW represents the groundwater gains to the Crooked River due to 

diversions above DEBO, and other represents all other groundwater and surface water gains and 

losses. The subscripts HIST and MODEL refer to historic observed or modeled flows. other is 

assumed not to change from scenario to scenario. 

Combining and rearranging: 

opalMODEL = opalHIST + TerreMODEL - TerreHIST + GWHIST - GWMODEL 

The model handles differences between groundwater gains due to irrigation (GWHIST -

GWMODEL) as part of the 16 percent of gains which return below Culver as described earlier in 

the “Groundwater Gains” section. The remaining values to complete the contributions from the 

Crooked River, opalMODEL, are historic and modeled flows at Terrebonne. Modeled Terrebonne 

flows are determined by the Crooked River Surface Water Distribution Model described in 

section 2. 

-13-
Pelton-Round Butte Operations 

In the model, Pelton-Round Butte was operated by targets which reflect historic average 

elevations. Pelton-Round Butte operations attempt to release the minimum of either (1) the 

required minimum flow at Madras or (2) reservoir inflow. The July through February required 

minimum flow at Madras is 3000 cubic feet per second (cfs); the March through June required 

minimum flow is 3500 cfs. 

Calibration 

The Extended Deschutes Model was calibrated to available historic (observed) flows, diversions, 

and reservoir contents. Calibration results indicate that the model successfully represents water 

supply and system operations. 

-14-
— APPENDIX D— 

Effects of Wasco Dam Storage 

on White River Flows 

 

EFFECTS OF WASCO DAM STORAGE ON WHITE RIVER FLOWS 

Mary Mellema, Hydrologist 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Boise, Idaho 

August 2002 

The White River is a tributary to the Deschutes River and enters downstream from Pelton 

Dam at river mile (RM) 46.4. The White River drainage is approximately 417 square 

miles and has its headwaters near Mt. Hood. White River Falls is a natural barrier in the 

basin and is 2.1 miles upstream from the confluence with the Deschutes River. 

The Wapinitia Project consists of approximately 2,100 acres in the White River basin. 

Wasco Dam storage is used to supplement the irrigation flows on the project when the 

natural flows begin to decrease in July during wet years and as early as April in dry years. 

The total amount of water diverted from natural streamflow and storage for the Wapinitia 

Project is 5,000 acre-feet (AF) annually. 

There are three private irrigation districts in the White River basin that also affect the flow 

in the White River. These private diversions divert more water than the Wapinitia Project, 

diverting flow to approximately 7,160 acres for a total amount of 21,490 AF annually1 

. 

The diversions occur primarily during the summer months. The effect of Wasco Dam 

storage on White River flows is small when compared to the other irrigation projects in 

the White River basin. 

Wasco Dam storage effects on White River flows was analyzed by using daily flow data 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage below Tygh Valley and calculating how 

dam operations affected those flows. The Tygh Valley gage was located near the mouth 

of the White River downstream from White River Falls and approximately 2 miles 

upstream from the confluence with the Deschutes River. Data were available for water 

years 1918 through 1990. Mean monthly flows were computed and the average, 

maximum, and minimum flows were plotted in Figure 1. The monthly flows ranged from 

2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) maximum during a January winter rain event to a 

minimum of 80 cfs during a base flow period in August. The average monthly flows 

ranged from roughly 130 cfs in August and September to 730 cfs in May. 

1

 Toll, Larry. 2002. Personal Communication. Watermaster, Oregon Department of Water Resources. 

1 
Figure 1. White River below Tygh Valley 

Mean Monthly Flows for Period 1918 – 1990
 

White River below Tygh Valley Mean Monthly Flows 

Water Years 1918 - 1990 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May Jun Jul A ug Sep 

cfs 

A verage Maximum Minimum 

Effects from Wasco Dam operations on White River flow were analyzed using reservoir 

storage data. Daily storage data for the period 1984 through 2000 were available from the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s historic data set. During this period there were two years when 

data was not available and some months were missing within a few other years. End-ofmonth storage was tabulated for each year and the change in storage for each month was 

calculated. The change in monthly storage was averaged and converted to change in flow. 

The maximum, minimum, and average change in monthly flow is shown in Figure 2. 

2 
Figure 2. Flow Change per Month due to Wasco Dam Operations 

White Riv e r be low Tygh Valle y Av e rage M onthly Flows 

With Wasco Storage Effe cts 

Wate r Ye ars 1918 - 1990 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul A ug Sep 

cfs 

Average Maximum Minimum 

Average Flow w / Wasco Max Flow w / Wasco Min Flow w / Wasco 

The change in monthly flow ranged from an increase of 46 cfs to a decrease of 102 cfs. 

The average change was +6 cfs during the irrigation season. The monthly flow change is 

positive when the water is released from storage into the river; when the flow change is 

negative the water is going into storage and not flowing down the river. Negative flow 

changes occur in the winter months during storage and in the spring months during 

periods of high runoff from rain and snowmelt events. Positive flow changes occur during 

the June through September period when natural runoff is low and irrigation demands are 

high, because storage is released to supply irrigation water. These flow trends are 

applicable to the White River and the Deschutes River below its confluence with the 

White River. 

The Wasco Dam storage changes and the total White River flow were compared in Figure 

3. This figure illustrates the magnitude of impacts of the average monthly amount of 

water stored and released from Wasco Dam on the White River. For all three categories, 

minimum, average and maximum flows, the effect of the change in flow from Wasco 

Dam are very small when compared to the total White River flow. 

3 
Figure 3. White River below Tygh Valley, Average Monthly Flows 

with Seasonal Effects of Storing and Releasing Water from Wasco Dam. 

Summa ry Hydrograph of W hite Rive r Flow Cha nge pe r 

Month due to W a sco Dam Ope ra tions 

W a te r Ye a rs 1984 - 2000 

-120 

-100 

-80 

-60 

-40 

-20 

0 

20 

40 

60 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul A ug Sep 

Change In Flow (cfs) 

A verage Maximum Minimim 

The effects of Wasco storage is almost negligible when compared to the total flow near 

the mouth of the White River and on the lower Deschutes River. Private irrigation 

projects, which collectively divert more water in the White River basin, most likely have a 

greater effect on the flow of the White River than the Wapinitia Project. 

4