A group that has worked to restore upper basin flows in the Deschutes River says short-term steps must be taken immediately to improve habitat for the endangered spotted frog. The Coalition for the Deschutes was formed in 1985 as a not-for-profit corporation to protect the economic, recreational and environmental future of the Deschutes River basin. It says that regulating water release volumes from Wickiup dam to avoid extreme high and low flows associated with irrigation needs in the spring and summer will help restore critical habitat for the frog.
On an exclusive viewing tour on a slough on the upper river near LaPine State Park, scientists pointed out spotted frog egg masses laid during recent warm weather in early April.
Dr. Jerry Freilich, a retired aquatics ecologist, is part of the group. Freilich spent 13 years as chief of research for the Olympic National Park in Washington and is considered a river flow regime expert. Much of his research centered on the Elwha River where a $325 million dam removal and restoration project, the nation’s largest thus far, has led to returning runs of salmon and steelhead.
“This slough is an unusual place because it’s a spot where slow water, or no flow at all, is what is needed so the babies can hatch in a safe environment,” says Freilich. However, the slough is not perfect because of erratic water flows that fluctuate from reservoirs to farms with seasonal irrigation needs. “This is a population that has managed to hold on, but because these frogs are in such dire straits we really need to protect every one of these populations right now, and this is one that needs protection,” he says.
Gail Snyder is board president of the Coalition for the Deschutes. She talks about short and long-term solutions to problems in the upper Deschutes River. Short term, she says, year-round flows of 300 cubic feet per second can be established to moderate run off and allow the river ecology to begin improving. She says that flow level would provide adequate water for users, including farms. The suggested flow is contained in a 1996 Wild and Scenic Management Plan for the upper Deschutes. Longer term solutions include irrigation district upgrades to reduce waste and evaporation as water is transported for irrigation.
Shon Rae, communications manager for the Central Oregon Irrigation District, is cautious about the short-term solutions offered by the coalition. “With regard to whether 300 cfs of year-round flow is what is needed to protect the frog, the whole issue of winter flows is very much the subject of ongoing consideration by the experts.” She continued, “You can’t look at winter flows in a vacuum – as providing more flow during certain times of the year will affect what happens in the river at other times of the year.”
Rae says irrigation districts will continue work on developing conservation measures that will be included in the Habitat Conservation Plan. “The [irrigation] districts fully anticipate that the final HCP measures will meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while enabling the districts to continue to fulfill legal obligations to deliver water to their patrons,” she explained. Short-term solutions not supported with good science could end up being detrimental for the frogs, she argues.
Freilich argues that most people simply don’t understand the fragile nature of rivers. “The river banks have vegetation that is tremendously important to the animals and plants that live here.” He explains that the bottom of a river is the most important part of the waterway, providing food for aquatic life. “The stone flies, mayflies, caddis flies, and small midge larvae live in the bottom. The rocks, gravel, and riffles are all vitally important. All of that is affected by flow regime.” Referring to water released at Wickiup, Freilich says, “You can’t just turn it on like a hose and turn it off like a hose and expect nature to go on its merry way.”
COID’s Rae stated that whatever changes might be appropriate in the short term, the long-term approach is still the same. “We need to modernize our existing delivery system. Such modernization includes conservation efforts like piping and lining canals, which requires significant funding.”
Last week, Sen. Jeff Merkley included language in a Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill that urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide additional funding for projects that will help irrigation districts comply with the Endangered Species Act.
“The collaborative process that is unfolding in Central Oregon to address the loss of habitat for the spotted frog is remarkable,” Merkley said.
COID’s Shon Rae adds, “If enacted into law, the Water Appropriations bill will be a boost to continuing our collaborative approach to water needs in our basin.”
This article appears in Apr 20-27, 2016.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The judge who presided over the recent Spotted frog ESA case in Eugene would not issue the injunction sought by Water watch. The description of the demise of the frog was incomplete and unconvincing to the judge. Rather, both sides were admonished to build trust and work together toward a settlement.
That trust is hard to come by when both sides are playing games with facts and numbers.
Waterwatch was a member of the workgroup that produced the groundwater mitigation water credits to improve summer flows on the Deschutes below Bend. In an April 2015 letter to the Oregon Water Resources Dept. request for stakeholder feedback, Waterwatch wrote,”In conclusion, the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation program is largely working”
The DGM program predicted that the flows on the Deschutes would be lower than normal for a month after the end of the irrigation season. Waterwatch knew this when they signed on to the program.
Yet, only 6 months after that letter, they filed suit when the combination of a historic agreement and a historic drought combined to lower river levels not seen since the droughts of the 1970s.
After extensive reading of the complaint and related groundwater mitigation documents, it’s clear how Water Watch doctored their evidence.
Their data regarding frog reproduction was from 2014-2015, yet no mention was made that these were drought years of historic proportions. In that context, the difficulties described for the frogs could very well have been worse if not for the stored water that kept the river from going completely dry.
Their complaint asked for 500 CFS all winter and full reservoirs all summer. Yet a flow of 500 CFS winter and summer is about 360,000 acre-feet.. The capacity of Wikiup, Crane Prairie, and Crescent lakes combined are only 341,000 acre-feet. The total flow of the upper Deschutes is about 500,000AF. It doesn’t add up to enough water for their request.
Now that they have been told to go back to the table and check their math, 300CFS is what they’re aiming for. That would require 200,000 acre-feet to maintain year round. That is the entire capacity of Wikiup Reservoir, the main storage site.
On the other side, the Water managers have all the water measurements and they fudge the numbers, like any manager, to justify their policies.
The key point is the difference between the water diverted from the river and the amount delivered to the field. The water right is the delivered amount. The amount of transport losses and inaccuracies in delivery can be manipulated to take all the water they can get.
The other point of contention is the mitigation delivery. Mitigation water is an instream right, but is treated like other irrigation water. It must go through the system and have its transport losses accounted for. At the end of its trip, the mitigation water is delivered to Lake Billy Chinook. This is far downstream from the zones-of-impact that the water was meant to mitigate.
While this doesn’t do fish of frogs much good, it does protect water right holders from encroachment. The agreement was certainly not perfect, but the districts are understandably mistrustful of San Francisco eco-lawyers, especially since this second lawsuit.
So there is little trust coming to the table. Water, and how much the irrigators lose, is the only item on the table. What’s not on the table is the impact of the sport fishing industry that Water Watch represents..
While river management does impact the ecosystem, the major damage to riparian zones along the river banks and frog sloughs is the fishermen who must hunt down every planted trout in the river.
Your recent article describing the fragile habitat along the river was incomplete without discussing the damage done by sportsmen. The miles of riverbank trails and the in stream damage done by waders and boatmen’s anchors are destroying river ecosystems just as surely as the irrigators. Removing all the top predators as a weekend goal sounds so 20th century.
Over 6 months, 4000 planters drift down from Fall River into the Deschutes that include 250 trophy sized Purina fish over 16”. With their partners at the ODFW, they have created a wonderfully unsustainable Disneyland of fishing for the folks in Sunriver.
These fishermen want to destroy the economy of Madras and much of central Oregon supposedly to protect a spotted frog. Then they expect us to watch them trample the same eco-system even more?. A ban on fishing the Deschutes will allow the riparian areas and the frogs to actually recover. But you will never see that accepted by Water Watch. They are also die hard fishermen.
So where is the common ground for negotiations? I would suggest that Water Watch change its name again and its focus. Instead of pleading for government intervention and subsidies for their businesses, Change your name to Water DO. DO something besides complain. Around here, we work hard and invest to make water benefit as many people as the State can spread it to. With your resources, you could DO the same
I am among the smallest of water users. Yet my costs for delivery and pumping, without labor, exceed $1500 for 6 months water. I pay the annual assessment even if no water is delivered. I use it to improve the habitat of my local ecosystem and am happy to take on that burden of stewardship.
I would suggest that Water DO consider a similar level of commitment and investment that the irrigators have made over the last century. If your investment is an annual sport fishing license, a new set of waders, and some San Francisco eco-lawyers, you have little investment to complain about.
The irrigators understand hard work and the benefits of investment. Partnering with them to line canals and buying water rights to protect the water recovered, is the long term way forward to build real trust and use this resource wisely for people, fish and frogs..