HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-12 Gould Drought Conditions with Exhibits 42q a-z\-oc,oSoS- SP
NJo,l lz- 2o >\
T+["",1r,F 4
BM-A
a)?\-t -r\ -oo a553-\'q2e -A
RECEIVED
Nov I 2 20?l
Deschutes county cDD
()
U
INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST WATER REPORTS
DESCHUTES BASIN RESOURCES AND DRAWDOWNS
By Mark Yinger Associates
(Sisters Oregon)
For This Public Record
Previously Submitted In Other Water Evaluation Processes
Independent Reports Commissioned For Various Evaluation Uses
Independent Deschutes Basin Water Resources Reports
Reports Cover: Proposed Thornburg Resort Water Issues
Deschutes Basin Water Resources: Including Drawdowns Prior 10 Years
S"+)IT lr(x)D Tuil'st
$tut)
{1.8,\R L.\KF.,.
fit.Actc\M,\s L\K*..
'l
H(X;C
t;
slllrp Legend
l sfiot'f:L sirc
* City
-
Wrtensbrd
-
Slrtrnrr. lJh+;, & Rir{n
S, ciinrare uara
J Soltittotsrurr,/trmpcralurd Drtr
octKrco:nf.{t olv$
DERR.
sM)lv lx)uilT.rtff
sa\TtAitt
!uctcNat-,
TllRSf, CREf,I(S $IEAIX)IV '
ROARIi\G RIVEI{
tnniH't'A
c,{scADn
s^l;l cRsFx *l\Lt^s.
i\f,w cnHsctiYr LAxs...
suilvm L.|KE ---
I
Ji
\
-'a
c$R\r u,,'r'..r r,Tt *orn s, J
0 2{l Miles
(
(
A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Mark Yinger Associates
and
Northwest Land & Water, lnc.
a
=
-
NORTH'VESTk"dLM
MarkYingertss0cttrts
February 2008
Case Study:
Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation
Upper l)eschutes Basin, Oregon
Prepared for:
Steve Munson, President
Sandy Lonsdale, Director
Native Restoration Fund
Vulcan Power Company
Bend, OR
Prepared by:
Mark Yinger, R.G.
Mark Yinger Associates
69860 Camp Polk Rd.
Sisters, OR 97759
541-549-3030
and
Laura Strauss, Principal Hydrogeologist, LG, LHg
Northwest Land & Water,Inc.
655637thAve NE
Seattle, WA 98115
www.nlwinc.com
206-525-0049
February 2008
ffieort
A$SOCIAIES A Cdf rrhltr{ in H!idtr6k(}
MarkYinggl r{QRTllS'ES'r
land & WhEr, rxc
1.0 Executive Summary. ................1
Table of Contents
Proposed Development
Purpose...
Scope of Investigations
Study Area..........
Warranty...
Background Information
USGS Investigation.......
Regulatory Framework..
2.0
2.r
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
3
J
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
............ 10
............ I I
1l
Geology & Hydrogeology ......13
Geology & Hydrogeology.........
Other Technical Work.........
Management & Mitigation...................
Physiographic Setting........
Climate
Geologic Setting......
Hydrogeologic Setting.......
Groundwater Flow System
.. l3
..14
.. 15
.. 17
..20
Recent Hydrologic Data
Precipitation ........................
Groundwater Levels
Streamflow
Groundwater Use........
Seepage Data ..........
Stream Temperature
Groundwater Flow Modeling..
Description of the USGS Model.......
Data Source for New Runs................
Verification of USGS Steady-State Model
Steady State versus Transient Conditions
Simulations with Proposed Thornburgh Wells
23
23
24
27
29
30
32
35
35
37
38
38
39
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
'E
ilORTHWIiET
tanrd & lffafes, rrc
f,.n.rhlr* ii H:il.ote(ld(!
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.0
9.1
9.2
10.0
10.1
10.2
Water Rights Activity
Data Sources.............
Method
Results & Discussion
Deepened Wells
Data Source & Method........
Discussion
Fish Habitat in the UDB
Data Sources ................
Discussion
43
43
44
44
46
46
46
48
48
48
50
50
51
52
Mitigation
Current Alternatives ...............
Concerns
OWRD Evaluation
Analysis of Projected Impacts.
lmpacts Related to Thornburgh Case
Climate Change ........
Habitat Resources .....
Considerations for Future Developments .............
13.0 Recommendations ..............57
14.0 References 58
11.0
11.1
tt.2
11.3
12.0
t2.l
12.2
t2.3
12.4
List of Tables
Table 6-1 Precipitation Summary Statistics 1989 through 2007, UpperDeschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 6-2 Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public
Supply Wells 1997*2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 6-3 Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Private
Supply Wells 19972006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 6-4 Total Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public Supply Wells 1997-
2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 6-5 Total Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public Private Wells 1997-
2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 7-1 Summary of Diminished Streamflow, Model Results for Scenarios I and 2
54
54
55
55
55
MarkYingq $ORTHWEST
Land& ffaEB rN{:
ASSOCIAIES tgt A f !nrnlilfl, hr tlrd.r**rlori
Table 8-1 Summary of Groundwater Rights Permits and Granted Water Use per Year since
llllI998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 8-2 Summary of Groundwater Rights Applications and Requested Water Use per Year
since 1/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 8-3 Summary of Surface Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use per Year since
lll/I998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 8-4 Summary of Surface Water Rights Application and Granted Requested Use per Year
since l/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Table 9-L Summary of Number of Wells Deepened since 1980 in the Vicinity of Thornburgh /
Redmond, by Township and Range
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 USGS Study Area
Figure 2-2Location Map
Figure 5-1 Generalized Geologic Units of the Upper Deschutes Basin
Figure 5-2 Detailed Geologic Map & Well Locations Cline Buttes Area
Figure 5-3 Generalized Hydrogeologic Units of the Upper Deschutes Basin
Figure 6-1 OWRD Observation Wells and Precipitation Stations In Vicinity of Thornburgh, Up-
per Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Figure 6-2 Annual Precipitation at Six Sites in the Upper Deschutes Basin
Figure 6-3 Days of Snowpack per Water Year at Wickiup Dam
Figure 6-4 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3903
Figure 6-5 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3949 (15S/l3E-
21ABD1)
Figure 6-6 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3581 (l5S/l2E-
14CDD)
Figure 6-7 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 8626 (l4sllzE-ozccc) ,
Figure 6-8 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 1957 (l4S/118-
0lDDDl)
Figure 6-9 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3193 (lsS/lOE-
36AAD2)
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIAIES
}TSFTHWE9Tt"faftqef5l-*
Crnr*llk+ in Hldlt*rDl!t'tv lL
Figure 6-10 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3614 (Eagle Crest
#2)
Figure 6-11 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 53714 (Eagle
Crest #3)
Figure 6-12 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 386 (Eagle Crest
#t)
Figure 6-13 Selected Stream Gauging Stations in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (from
Gannett et a1., 2001)
Figure 6-14 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Crescent Creek
Figure 6-15 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Wickiup Reservoir
Figure 6-16 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Little Deschutes River at La Pine
Figure 6-17 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River at Benham Falls
Figure 6-18 Hydrogfaph for Stream-Gauging Station Tumalo Creek near Bend
Figure 6-19 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Bend
Figure 6-20 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes at Cline Falls near Redmond
Figure 6-21 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes at Lower Bridge near Terre-
bonne
Figure 6-22Hydro,graph for Stream-Gauging Station Whychus (Squaw) Creek at Sisters
Figure 6-23 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Culver
Figure 6-24Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Madras
Figure 6-25 Gains or Losses to Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, OWRD Au-
gust 2005 Data
Figure 6-26 Stream Temperature From Thermal lnfrared Data, Upper Deschutes Basin
Figure 7-1 Diminished Streamflow Results of Steady-State Model Simulation Scenario I
Figure 7-2Diminished Streamflow Results of Steady-State Model Simulation Scenario 2
Figure 7-3 Calculated Drawdown Contours, Layer 1, Scenario l, Pumping 3.25 cfs fromLayet 2
Figure 7-4 Calculated Drawdown Contours, Layer 1, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7
Figure 7-5 Calctlated Drawdown Contours for Layer 2, Scenario 1, Pumping3.Z5 cfs from
Layer2
Figure 7-6 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 2, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from
Layer 7
Figure 7-7 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 7, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from
Layer2
illarkYinggl
ASSOCIAIES
licRTtt!ulisT
Land & Wster. rHc-
1/l}^Crn.EltLr* ili H!Uran6ol6$t
Figure 7-8 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 7, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from
Layer 7
Figure 9-1 Area of Deepened Well Survey, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Figure 10-1 Critical Area Habitat for Bull Trout
Figure 11-1 OWRD Deschutes Ground Water Zones of Impact
List of Appendices
Appendix A Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Descriptions
Appendix B Well Logs For Thomburgh Area
Appendix C Public Well and Private Well Water Use Data
Appendix D Seepage Data Collected by the USGS for the OWRD
Appendix E Water Rights and Permits Data
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATE$
rroRTl.!wFtT
L+rrrd & lVateq rxc
co,-,'t,t,{ififfiffyvt^fL
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
1.0 Executive Summary
This report details the results of an investigation conducted to assess the potential
impacts of pumping 3.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from six new wells
in the Upper Deschutes Basin (UDB). These wells are part of the proposed Thorn-
burgh destination resort, which is located near important ecological resources.
The proposed Thornburgh development will exacerbate rising trends in water use,
which has increased consistently since 1998. Likewise, water right permits and
applications have also increased significantly since 1998. They reflect the history
of water rights policy in the UDB.
To assess the potential impacts to ecological resources, we analyzed geologic, wa-
ter level, climate, streamflow, water use, water quality, temperafure, seepage, and
habitat data. We also ran a model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Our modeling and hydraulic analyses identified reaches of the middle
Deschutes River and lower Whychus Creek that will be impacted by pumping
from the proposed Thornburgh wells. Listed critical bull trout, core populations of
redband trout, and unique plant communities live within these reaches.
) Groundwater level impacts. Declines in groundwater levels are important
because they impact not only other water users but also streamflows. Hydrau-
lic and well deepening data indicate that groundwater levels are already de-
clining in parts of the UDB. A concentration of wells has been deepened near
the Eagle Crest Resort, which is located a short distance east of Thornburgh,
indicating declines. Recent hydrogeologic information for the Cline Buttes
area also indicates that impacts to groundwater levels in the Thornburg area
will exceed the predictions of the USGS model. The Thornburgh wells will
accelerate water level declines, impact existing water wells and reduce
streamflows.
) Water quality impacts. The temperature in UDB streams currently exceeds
the recommended quality for bull trout and general stream health. Cold
groundwater discharges are essential to reducing stream temperatures. Pump-
ing from the Thornburgh and other future wells will cumulatively reduce these
groundwater discharges if not properly mitigated. More specifically, modeling
indicates that pumping from proposed Thornburgh wells would reduce cold
spring discharges to the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek reaches
that have federally listed critical bull trout habitat, core populations of redband
trout, and important ecological resources for reintroducing Chinook salmon
and summer steelhead. As cold gtoundwater discharges decline in response to
new pumping, warrn water will migrate downstream, negatively impacting
these resources.
MarkYinggl
ASS0CtAIES
YORTI{WEgT
land & Water, rpe
{&^db^g&nralrk* ir 11|dN4rrlodt
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
) Streamflow impacts. Our analysis indicates that impacts will occur to the
middle Deschutes River above RM 125, lower Whychus Creek, and Tumalo
Creek. Seepage does not occur consistently along the Deschutes River; rather,
it is strong in some places and weak in others, indicating significant preferred
groundwater flow paths. River sections with small gains are most vulnerable
to small changes in groundwater level. Water temperature in these sections is
at great risk of increasing as cool groundwater inflow declines.
Mitigation must be within this zone of impact. The water permit for Thornburgh
allows mitigation in the general zone, anywhere in the basin above the Madras
gauge. This will result in an unmitigated new groundwater permit. In addition,
current mitigation strategies rely on current streamflow measurements to evaluate
the effectiveness of the water rights banking system. Streamflows will undoubt-
edly change in response to declines in precipitation and increased pumping.
Success of the mitigation program must be measured against the goal of moving
toward a more natural hydrograph, not by comparing streamflow to the histori-
cally lowest streamflow, when diversions were at their maximum.
MarkYinger tEnd
TilaIEET
&lVatsr nc}T$R
2AS$0CtAItS ^L trln,rhldt in H!d0{.e!lnlt
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURCH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
2.0 lntroduction
Development in the Upper Deschutes Basin (UDB) has increased dramatically
over the past 20 years. However, land use authorities and regulatory agencies
have not required developers to comprehensively evaluate impacts to hydrological
(streamflows, aquifer levels) and ecological resources due to new gfoundwater
development. Although the USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the
UDB, the potential impacts to hydrological and ecological resources have not
been adequately evaluated. Furtherrnore, recent data suggests declining trends in
both precipitation and groundwater levels. These trends would not only impact
streamflows, gfoundwater levels, and ecological resources of the upper and mid-
dle Deschutes River, but they would also be aggravated by future groundwater
pumpage if not correctly mitigated.
Key ecological resources along the upper and middle Deschutes River include
habitat for native bull and Redband trout; in addition, some reaches contain criti-
cal spawning and rearing habitat. Reduced streamflow and discharges from cold
springs would impact fisheries. The middle Deschutes canyon is also home to
unique riparian habitat.
This study focuses on impacts that a 1,970 acre destination resort planned in
Deschutes County will have on water resources and water dependant ecology. In
addition to this resort there are fourteen other destination resorts that are either
under construction or in some stage of planning in Deschutes, Jefferson and
Crook Counties. The total acreage of these resorts may range from 20,000 to
25,000. These destination resorts will rely almost entirely on gtoundwater. Their
impact on water resources will be significant. The impact of each resort and the
cumulative impact of all the resorts should be evaluated.
2.1 Proposed Development
Legislation passed in 2005 authorized the allocation of water from the Deschutes
River and from the aquifers that feed it during seasons when instream flows are
unmet. The legislation allows further groundwater development, which may di-
minish both quantity and quality of water in the Deschutes River and its tributar-
ies.
A recent case of this legislation in action is the destination resort proposed by the
Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC. This resort would cover about 1,970 acres
west of the City of Redmond and would require new groundwater supplies to sup-
MarL Yinft
ASSOCIATES
YORTHWE$Tlsod&water" t*'
*t r&l*nr.{rhE iil H!d.t(crlati
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATIoN
port I,425 dwelling units, three golf courses, two clubhouses, a community cen-
ter, shops, and meeting / dining facilities.
As part of the review process, Thornburgh hired David Newton and Associates to
prepare a hydrology report to inform and support Deschutes County land-use de-
cisions about the resort. This report was released in 2005. Unfortunately, it falls
far short of evaluating the impacts that pumping six proposed wells will have not
only on valuable hydrological and ecological resources but also on existing wells.
2.2 Purpose
We have undertaken this study for two reasons. The first is to evaluate the im-
pacts of the Thornburgh resort's use of groundwater. The work summarized in
this report represents an effort to better understand the current hydrogeologic
conditions in the UDB and to evaluate impacts to the hydrogeologic system from
the proposed resort. However, an additional-equally important-goal is to dem-
onstrate an appropriate level of evaluation that regulators should apply to any
proposed developments involving new groundwater withdrawals (pumpage from
new wells). We see the Thornburgh project as a case study that has a potential to
establish new standards for reviewing current and future projects in the UDB. We
hope these results help establish mitigation and water use strategies that sustain
the Deschutes' high habitat and recreational values.
This study was authorizedby Steve Munson, long-time resident of the UDB, out
ofhis concern for the region's resources.
2.3 Scope of lnvestigations
Work for this study was conducted under two separate phases, by Mark Yinger
Associates (MYA) and Northwest Land & Water, Inc. (NLW). MYA, the project
manager, was responsible for evaluating the regional and local geology and
hydrogeology. NLW analyzed water resource data and conducted groundwater
flow modeling.
2.3.1 Phase I
Phase I of this study was outlined in a scope of work our team prepared to evalu-
ate the impacts resulting from pumping large amounts of groundwater for the
Thornburgh Resort. It entailed using a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground-
MarkYingql $SBT'{WIiFT
hnd & Ii/akr, rxe
4ASSOCIATES rL q3*rrklnr in Hidr%.nloi!
CASE STUDYI THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
water flow model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988) to predict impacts to the
Deschutes River and its tributaries from the proposed pumping. The proposed
Thornburgh wells were incorporated into the USGS model so we could simulate
conditions under a range ofsteady-state scenarios.
2.3.2 Phase ll
The scope of work was revised under Phase II to review and assess recent hydro-
logic data, and to compare this data to the data used by the USGS for its 1993-
1997 study. Major components of Phase II included:
) Summarizing information about water use, policy, and legislation pertinent to
the UDB.
) Compiling and summarizing hydrologic data collected since 1997.
) Evaluating trends in hydrologic data-specifically, trends in parameters that
can profoundly affect fish habitat: water levels, stream temperature, stream-
flows, climate, seepage, and groundwater use, among others.
) Using the steady-state USGS flow model "as is" to predict the effects of
pumping the proposed Thornburgh wells on streamflows and groundwater
levels.
) Evaluating the ecological impacts resulting from reduced streamflows and
groundwater levels predicted by the modeling.
2.4 Study Area
The study area for this report, shown in Figure 2-1, covers the same area as the
USGS modeling investigation but focuses on the geology and hydrogeology near
the proposed Thornburgh resort. The USGS study area encompasses approxi-
mately 4,500 square miles of the Deschutes River drainage basin in central Ore-
gon, which includes several major tributaries: the Little Deschutes River, Tumalo
and Whychus Creeks, and the Metolius River from the west, and the Crooked
River from the east.
Land-surface elevation ranges from less than 1,300 feet near Gateway in the
northern part of the study area to more than 10,000 feet in the Cascades. The
study area also includes the basin's major population centers, where gtoundwater
development is most intense and resource-management questions are most urgent.
These communities include Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Madras, Prineville, and La
MarklbgE
ASSOCIATES
,{$RTitllrli9T
[eud & ltr{ater, rric
E A fn(!r[ld, in Hrdrnt rh*l
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATToN
Pine. Figure 2-2 shows the location of the Thornburgh resort property, the pro-
posed wells, and public and private lands.
2.5 Warranty
This work was requested by Steve Munson and completed by MYA and NLW. It
was performed, and this report was prepared, in accordance with hydrogeologic
practices generally accepted at this time, in this area, for the exclusive use of
Steve Munson. No other warranty, express, or implied, is made.
MarkYinger I{ORTHWETT
Lild&VhEE, lr+
6ASS0CTATES rt'Cnotahld* iB Hrdu{ctrl.8S
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
3.0 Background lnformation
3.1
The UDB is presently one of the fastest growing areas in Oregon. The number of
people in Deschutes County, the most populous in the basin, quadrupled between
1970 and 2001 (Gannett and Lite,2004), and grew by about 29 percent from 2001
to 2006. Approximately 160,000 people lived in the UDB as of 2001. Growth is
expected to continue, and residents and government agencies are concerned about
supplying water to the growing population while protecting the rights and re-
sources of existing water users. Surface-water resources in the area have been
closed to additional appropriation for many years. Therefore, virtually all new de-
velopment in the region must rely on groundwater sources.
USGS lnvestigation
In response to this concern, the USGS conducted an investigation of the hydro-
geology of the UDB, collecting data from 1993 to 1997. Prior to the USGS study,
researchers had insufficient data to quantitatively evaluate the connection between
gtoundwater and streamflow-or even the behavior of the regional gtoundwater
flow system in general. At the time of the USGS investigation, and prior to 2005,
Oregon water law required those applying for new groundwater rights to evaluate
the potential effects of groundwater development on streamflow.
The USGS investigation was born out of the hydrologic information void. The ob-
jectives of the study were to quantitatively assess the regional groundwater sys-
tem and to provide analytical tools for making sound resource-management deci-
sions. It has helped State and local government agencies, geologists, hydrologists,
and residents when considering applications for new groundwater rights.
3.2 Regulatory Framework
3.2.1 Scenic Waterways Act
The Scenic Waterways Actwas voted into law in November,1970 to protect the
free-flowing character of designated rivers for fish, wildlife and recreation and
protect and enhance scenic, aesthetic, natural, recreation, scientific and fish and
wildlife qualities along scenic waterways. Under this law, the portion of the
Deschutes River below the Pelton Reregulation Dam to the Columbia River is
MarkYinggl t{oRTriwrET
I-snd & Wabr, rilc
vASS()CIATES ^&t nrr[iltt ilr Hrdrntr.lotl
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
classified as a Recreational River Area under the Scenic Waterway Act (OAR
736-04o-0070).
In accordance with a 1988 Supreme Court Decision (Diack vs. City of Portland)
the Water Resources Commission must find that scenic waterway flows will not
be impaired before issuing new water rights. As originally enacted, the Oregon
Scenic Waterway Act prohibited new allocation of water from scenic waterways
unless the Water Resources Commission determined the use was consistent with
the scenic waterway law.
3.2.2 lnstream Flows Established
In l99l the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
established the specific flow levels needed for fish, wildlife, and recreation in the
Deschutes Scenic Waterway. The State also established instream water rights to
protect flows in the river system for fish and recreational values. According to the
2006 Water Summit report on instream flows (Golden and Aylward,2006) these
protected flows are already not met many months of the year for reaches in the
study area. ln general, irrigation storage and diversions are the primary reasons.
Streamflow in the Little Deschutes River and upper Deschutes River is primarily
affected by reservoir storage operations. Conversely, streamflow in the middle
Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek is affected by irrigation di-
versions (Golden and Aylward, 2006).
3.2.3 SB 1033 & Appeals
In 1995, the State legislature approved Senate Bill 1033, which amended Oregon's
Scenic Waterways Act, allowing new groundwater uses that measurably reduce
streamflows of scenic waterways-if mitigated. A measurable reduction is de-
fined as I percent or 1 cubic foot per second (cfs), whichever is less. All new
rights would be subject to the proviso that groundwater use would be curtailed if
data demonstrated a negative impact to scenic waterways. A public process to de-
velop mitigation rules was started in 1998. Based on preliminary results of the
USGS study, OWRD determined there was significant potential that new
groundwater use would result in reduced streamflow on scenic waterways, and
therefore, in 1998, a moratorium was placed on granting new groundwater per-
mits. Issuance of final mitigation rules occurred in September 2002.
In November 2002, WaterWatch, an advocacy group for Oregon rivers, filed a
case against OWRD arguing that the mitigation rules violated the Scenic Water-
ways Act and over allocated surface water in the UDB-thus failing to protect in-
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
XORTHtr'IiSTlflrd& Waterr t{{:
I ^&f(s!{lrhc iI ll]dto{eul!lr
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
stream water rights. In May 2005, the Court of Appeals found in favor of Water-
Watch. The mitigation rules were rejected because the Court found that they al-
low a lessening of impact even though the law requires maintaining current flow.
The Court in its opinion recognized that the legislature could choose to alter water
resource policy established in statutes, opening the door for House Bill3494.
3.2.4 House Bill 3494
In 2005, House Bill3494 passed, authorizing allocation of groundwater whether
or not it impacts the Deschutes River, regardless of the instream flows already es-
tablished under the Instream Water Rights Act. The potential effects of gtoundwa-
ter development on streamflow did not need to be evaluated when considering ap-
plications for new groundwater rights. House 81113494 undermines Oregon's Sce-
nic Waterways Act,passedinlg70 to protect flows needed for fish, wildlife, and
recreation in the Deschutes and other world-class rivers in Oregon.
HB 3494 passed with a "sunset provision" of January 2,2014. After HB 3494
sunsets, the rules found illegal by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2005-but
which became legal under HB 3494-will be terminated, precipitating the devel-
opment of a new mitigation and water use strategy for the Deschutes basin.
3.2.5 Current Concerns
The sunset provision raises a number of concems related to the long-term eco-
logical health of the UDB. Developers now have an incentive to rush projects re-
quiring new groundwater sources before the sunset date. Developments and asso-
ciated water rights may be approved without adequate scientific investigation to
quantiff hydrogeologic impacts. Because development is essentially unchecked,
the current and future health of the Deschutes hydrogeologic system is threatened
by declining groundwater levels, spring flows, and streamflows, along with in-
creased river water temperatures.
Although the USGS did much to characteizethe hydrogeologic system of the
UDB in the 1990s, development has been significant since then. As a result,
trends in water use, streamflows, and groundwater levels have changed, poten-
tially affecting the region's ecological resources.
\{arL&eE $gRTII!qEET
l,snd&Whter, nre
IASSOCIATES l},'Cns$kln* in Hrddi+.tloEt
CASE STUDYs THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
4.0 Previous Work
Many researchers have studied water resources in the UDB. This section identi-
fies much of the work conducted, the agency responsible for the work, and how it
was used in this report. Rather than listing all work done in the UDB, we have fo-
cused on investigations that provided the most pertinent information for under-
standing the general history and technical hydrogeology of water resources in the
UDB. A complete list of references used to prepare this report is included in Sec-
tion 14.
4.1 Geology & Hydrogeology
The USGS has published many reports on different aspects of water resources in
the UDB. A complete list of this work can be obtained onliner. The work de-
scribed below was the basis of the geology and hydrogeology summary in Section
5, the comparison of recent and previously available hydrologic data presented in
Section 6, and the modeling efforts detailed in Section 7.
) Groundwater and Water Chemistry Datafor the Upper Deschutes Basin
(Caldwell and Truini, 1997). Presents basic data collected and compiled for
the UDB, such as well1og records, water levels, and water chemistry data for
selected well, spring, and surface water sites.
) Groundwater Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (Gannett et
a1.,2001). Provides a comprehensive, qualitative description of regional
groundwater flow in the UDB and an analysis of the data compiled or col-
lected for the study.
) Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System in the Upper
Deschutes Basin, Oregon (Lite and Gannett, 2002). Describes the geologic
structures and stratigraphic units that form the framework for the gtoundwater
flow system in the UDB. The geology has a direct effect on the occurrence
and movement of groundwater.
) Hydrogeologt of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon: A Young Basin
Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic lrc (Sherrod, Gannett, and Lite, 2002).Ex-
plores the visible and conceptual aspects of the regional groundwater hydrol-
ogy of the UDB, including the interaction between groundwater and streams.
I http t //or.water.us gs. gov/proj /des chutes gw/pubs. html
Mqrhllrgax XQ4T'JWIiSTlaryl& Water' txr:
ASSOCIAIES 10 ^dh.C&arrlliff8 lt Htilrn{*ol(Nt
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
) Simulation of Regional Groundwater FIow in the Upper Deschutes Basin,
Oregon (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Describes the mathematical simulation of
regional groundwater flow in the UDB. It includes a description of the hy-
drology of the UDB and the methodology for representing the hydrologic sys-
tem in the numerical model. It also includes hydrologic data used for the
model calibration and a description of the calibration procedures.
4.2 Other Technical Work
Other technical work has been conducted to quantiff seepage in the gaining and
losing reaches of the streams in the UDB, to document Stream temperature, to
identiff critical habitat for listed fish, and to survey and document flora and
fauna. This report does not discuss the flora and fauna surveys, but the reports are
listed here because they comprise important technical work that has been done in
the UDB.
Seepage Data (McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). Seepage measurements were made
for OWRD and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These data were used to
quanti$r seepage in gaining and losing stream reaches as reported in Section 6.
Stream Temp erature (Watershed S ciences, 2002). Continuous temperature
measurements and aerial visible and infrared photographs were collected and re-
ported for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) by Water-
shed Sciences. Temperature measurements were used in Section 6.
Critical Fish Habitat (USFW, 2005) and (Fies et al., 1996). Identifies critical
habitat for bull trout and native redband trout; also, identifies and discusses the re-
introduction of salmon and steelhead. These data were used for Section 10.
Botanical Surveys (WPN,2006). A botanical inventory on the Middle Deschutes
from Odin Falls to Culver gauge that was prepared for the BLM.
Aquatic Invertebrate Survey. A macroinvertebrate study was conducted for
BLM to establish baseline conditions for comparison to data collected in the fu-
ture. Invertebrate populations and diversity are indicators of stream health.
4.3 Management & Mitigation
Much work has been done towards managing water resources in the UDB. Al-
though there is a large body of information about the legislative history of water
ASS0CtATES 1S"&MarkYinggl
$OFTHIT'EST
l+nd&W+ter. rxe..,'"'r,iiiiltiffii
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
resources in Oregon and the UDB, it is beyond the scope of this report to compile
that information. However, a few crucial documents describe water resource man-
agement, and, in particular, mitigation of diminished streamflow in the UDB.
They are described below.
Hydrology Report, Water Supply Development Feasibility: Proposed Thornburgh
resort, Deschutes County, Oregon (Newton,2005). Prepared for the Thornburgh
destination resort, this documents reports on the feasibility of groundwater devel-
opment. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners accepted this report as
an adequate demonstration of sufficient groundwater supply for the proposed pro-
ject, deeming that the potential impact to groundwater levels and nearby streams
is acceptable.
Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program, S-Year Program Evaluation Report
Draft (OWRD, 2008). Evaluates the first 5 years of the groundwater mitigation
progrcm. We used this information in Section 12.
Deschutes Basin Water Summit 2006. This conference brought together stake-
holders to enroll them in a consensus process for developing a comprehensive wa-
ter management plan. It communicated the findings of a number of comprehen-
sive studies on the following topics: instream flows; growth, urbanization, and
land use changes; water management scenarios; groundwater demand; irrigation
district water efficiency; and reservoir management. All of these reports can be
viewed from the Deschutes River Conservancy website2. While most of these re-
ports were not used directly in the report, they comprise an important body of
work on management strategy in the UDB. The report on instream flow was used
in Section 12.
2 http t //www. d e s c hutesriver. org
MarkYinger
$oRTlt*rr$r
land & lV*tea rxc
ass0cttlEs L2 ^fL crnrslrifl ,1. tu Hid$i^olt8t
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsouRcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
5.0 Geology & Hydrogeology
5.1
This section summarizes the geology and hydrogeology of the UDB and the
Thornburgh resort area. This information largely based on publications of the
USGS, OWRD, and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral lndustries
(DOGAMI). For additional information, consult the following references:
) Geologic Map of the Bend 30- x 60-Minute Quadrangle, central oregon,
USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-268i (Shenod et al,2004)
) Geologic Framework Of The Regional Groundwater Flow System In The Up-
per Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report
02-4015 (Lite and Gannett, 2002)
) Groundwater Hydrolog,'of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Inves'
tigations Report 0 2 -4 I 62 (Gannett et al., 200 I )
) Hydrogeologt of the Llpper Deschutes Basin, central oregon: A Young Ba-
sin Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic Arc, DOGAMI Special Paper 36 (Sher-
rod et a1.,2002)
) Groundwater Hydrologt of the Upper Deschutes Basin and lts Influence on
Streamflow (Gannett et al., 2003)
A limited amount of field work was done for this study in the vicinity of Thom-
burgh resort.
Physiographic Setting
The UDB is the portion of the Deschutes River drainage basin upstream of Trout
Creek. Trout Creek enters the Deschutes near Warm Springs, Oregon. The basin
stretches from the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range east approximately 100
miles and from Trout Creek south to just north of Chemult, Oregon, a distance of
approximately 100 miles. The cities of Bend and Redmond are the major popula-
tion centers and are located 25 to 30 miles east of the crest of the Cascade Moun-
tain Range and near the center of basin, north to south. The combined population
of the rapidly growing cities of Bend and Redmond is approximately 102,000.
The smaller cities of Prineville and Madras are located 18 miles to the east and 25
miles to the north of Redmond respectively. Their combined population is ap-
proximately 16,000. The small city of Sisters is located about 20 miles west of
Redmond. The small community of Tumalo is located about 5 miles south of the
Thornburgh property.
X{a$-YbgE
A$SOCIATES
tq$RTilWl!gr
tand&Wsler. rxc
JL5 &c*i$nl[tu* in HtJr{t.:oldilt
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
The Thornburgh resort lies approximately 6 miles west of Redmond and 2 miles
west of the north-flowing Deschutes River (Figure 2-2).lt is located on and adja-
cent to the Cline Buttes, which consist of three prominent buttes and a lower
ridge. These features have a northeasterly trend. The buttes rise 1,000 feet above
the surrounding plain. The surrounding plain generally slopes gently to the north-
northeast. The Deschutes River enters a narrow, steep wall canyon just north of
the community of Tumalo. East of the Cline Buttes, the river canyon is 100 to 150
feet deep.
The major tributaries of the Deschutes River are the Little Deschutes River, Meto-
lius River, Crooked River, Fall River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek3. The
Deschutes is dammed twice near the northern boundary of UDB, forming Lake
Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus. The mean annual flow of the Deschutes River
at Bend is 378 cfs; just above Lake Billy Chinook, it is 928 cfs (Gannett et al.,
2003).
Portions of three major physiographic provinces occur within the UDB. The High
Cascades physiographic province along the western edge of the basin is domi-
nated by large stratovolcanoes with summit elevations ofjust over 10,000 feet.
The northeastern portion of the UDB includes the western end of the Blue Moun-
tain physiographic province. This area includes the Mutton, Ochoco, and Maury
Mountains and most of the Crooked River drainage basin. The southeastern por-
tion of the UDB includes the westem end of the High Lava Plains physiographic
province, where the dominant feature is the large Newberry shield volcano. The
central crater of this shield volcano is about 20 miles south of Bend.
5.2 Glimate
Moist marine air moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean has a dominant and
moderating influence on the climate of the UDB. The winters are cool and wet
and the summers are wann and dry. The great majority of the annual precipitation
in the UDB occurs as snow and rain along its western margin; as moistureJaden
marine air rises to flow eastward up and over the crest of the Cascades, it cools,
leading to large amounts precipitation. The amount of precipitation varies dra-
matically across the UDB-from 100 plus inches per year along the Cascade crest
to less than I foot over much of the basin (Taylor, 1993). The 3O-year average
annual precipitation at Redmond is 8.6 inches (Taylor, 1993).
3 Whychus Creek is the new name of Squaw Creek.
MarkYinggl
f{$B,TilWE5T
land&WaEr, rxc
ASS0CtAiES L4 &Crniqlrisr ili Htdiofdola{}
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
5.3 Geologic Setting
The following discussion of the regional geology is based on our literature review
and on well logs. The discussion of local geology focuses on the Thornburgh des-
tination resort area and includes observations made during field reconnaissance
conducted for this study. A more detailed description of the regional geology is
contained in Appendix A and selected water well logs for the Thomburgh area
are included in Appendix B.
5.3.1 Regional Geology
The region has a long and complex history dominated by volcanic activity that
stretches from the Eocene through the Holocene Epochs. The UDB is a deposi-
tional basin filled with lava flows and volcaniclastic material known as the
Deschutes Formation, derived primarily from the Cascade Mountain range, which
flanks the basin on the west. To the north and east, the volcaniclastic material of
the basin fill lapped onto uplands composed of older Oligocene to Miocene vol-
canic material of the John Day and Clarno Formations. The John Day Formation
likely underlies most of the UDB. Much of the southern portion of the basin is
frlled with Pleistocene to Holocene basalt lava flows of the Newberry volcano and
alluvial and glacial outwash deposits of silt, sand, and gravel.
Figure 5-1 is a generalized geologic map taken from a USGS study (Gannett and
Lite,2004). The following table summarizes the stratigraphy of the region.
Geologic unit Age Description Generalized Geologic
Units of Fiqure 5-1
Sediments Pleistocene to
Holocene
Alluvium and glacial outwash silt, sand and
gravel, and sands and gravels of present day
streams
Quaternary sedimentary
deposits
Volcanic
deposits
Pleistocene Andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows, basalt
lava flows, ash flows,
Volcanic deposits, of the
Quaternary Cascades and
Newberry volcano
Deschutes Forma-
tion
Late Miocene
to Pliocene
Mudflows, debris flows, sandstone, conglomer-
ate, basaltic and andesitic lavas flows, ash flows,
air-fall ash and cinder cones
Volcanic and sedimentary
deposits, late Tertiary and
Quaternary
Volcanic and
sedimentarv rocks
Pliocene Basaltic-andesite and basalt lava flows and allu-
vial fan deposits
Prineville bdsalt Miocene Basalt lava flows Prineville basalt
John Day
Formation
Oligocene to
late Miocene
Altered andesitic ash flows, air-fall tuffs, tuf-
faceous sediments, rhyolite domes, and andesite
and basalt lava flows
Early Tertiary volcanic
deposits
Clarno Formation Eocene Altered andesitic lava flows, ash flows, mud-
flows, tuffaceous sediments, mudstone, clay-
stone. siltstone and conqlomerate
MarkYinggl !{oRTt{wEsr
land & Slater, rxc
ASSOCIAIES !.5 ^L C!rD?lliur i[ l{:drnt*old0t
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
5.3.2 Local Geology
The Thornburgh property is located on, and in the immediate vicinity of, Cline
Buttes, a rhyolite dome complex that rises approximately 1,000 feet above the
surrounding plain, which consists of basalt and basaltic-andesite lava flows of the
Deschutes Formation (Figure 5-2). These flows overlie sandstones and conglom-
erates of the Deschutes Formation. The thickness of the overlying lava flows is
quite variable, ranging from 40 feet to as much as 300 feet.
The bulk of Cline Buttes consists of devitrified, light-tan, sparsely porphyritic
rhyolite with very faint to no discernible flow banding, a sugary texture with
brownish clots of iron oxides, and an irregular tight fracture. Other textures in-
clude spherulitic in combination with faint flow banding. The rhyolite dome com-
plex and contemporaneous basalt lava flows suggest a strongly bimodal basalt-
rhyolite magna (Streck and Grunder,2007).
A low ridge extending to the southwest of the highest butte is likely a rhyolite
lava flow or flows that may have buried older vents. The ridge consists of tan to
light-gray rhyolite with distinct, fine, and generally planar flow banding having a
platy fracture coincident with flow bands. The platy fractures are generally tight.
Two linear zones of intense siliceous alteration were observed. They appear to be
associated with southwest-trending fracture zones. Here the flow-banded rhyolite
is completely replaced with massive, pure white, very-fine-grained silica.
A large rock quarry on the east side of the northem butte cuts into the flank of the
butte, exposing distinct zones of rhyolite breccia. A long bulldozer-cut near the
top of the quarry exposes at least four distinct zones of autoclastic breccia. The
breccia and hydrothermal alteration zones dip steeply away from the dome sum-
mit. The intensity of brecciation and degree of alteration increases outward from
the dome core. Each zone likely represents an episode of movement and hydro-
thermal alteration associated with a pulse of magma moving into the vent and
pushing upward and outward. The outer breccia zones of the dome have under-
gone repeated episodes of fracturing and fracture surfaces are commonly coated
with brown clay or silica, the products of hydrothermal alteration. The lower por-
tion of the quarry, at the base of the slope, cuts across an apron of rubble. The ma-
terial comprising the apron is a complex assemblage of angular, broken rhyolite
shed off the steep upper slopes the dome, tephra, agglomerate, and lavas. The
lavas are discontinuous and very broken, consisting of flow-banded gray and red-
dish-gray rhyolite and flow-banded obsidian. The volcanic rubble of the apron is
loose to weakly cemented with silica and very porous. Locally, the material has
undergone intense siliceous alteration, a process that has greatly reduced its per-
meability. The debris apron of the dome complex is, to a large extent, buried be-
neath Quatemary colluvium and alluvial fan deposits. Paleo-tributaries of the
\{arhrugs!
ASSOCIAIES
lrcRTH[rt!$T
Iand&WaEr, rxc
L6 &€cnt 4lrifi r{ in l{!d1{t4oln8t
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER RIsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
Deschutes River that flowed northeast may have eroded away significant portions
of the debris apron along both the southeast and northwest sides of the buttes.
ln the rock quarry, three areas of loose or very weakly cemented spherulites (4-10
mm) were observed in areas near the contact between the debris apron and rhyo-
lite breccia. The spherulites may be the residual of intense and localized hydro-
thermal alteration of the chilled glassy margin of the rhyolite.
Relatively little is known about the subsurface in the vicinity of the Cline Buttes
rhyolite dome complex. The rhyolite has an isotopic age of 6.14+0.20 Ma (million
years ago; Sherrod et a1.,2004). The complex is generally contemporaneous with
the surrounding Deschutes Formation, which consists of basalt and basaltic-
andesite lava flows and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. Driller's logs for the six
water wells located nearest the dome complex (DESC 7 56, 952, 1198,3666,3669
and 54485) were examined (Appendix B, Figure 5-2). Well DESC 756,located
on the south slope of the highest butte at about 3,350 feet in elevation, may inter-
sect as much as 830 feet of rhyolite. The driller describes ahard, brown sand-
stone, possibly misidentiffing devitrified rhyolite as sandstone because of its
sandy or grainy texture and flow banding. The driller of well DESC 3669,located
about a half mile to the south at approximately 3,160 feet in elevation, describes
hard brown and gray rock and sandstone to 496 feet beneath the surface and then
water-bearing sand and gravel from 496 feet to 535 feet beneath the surface. The
other four wells do not appear to intersect the rhyolite based on the well logs. A
well (DESC 1198) just north of the dome complex may intersect the dome debris
apron.
5.4 Hydrogeologic Setting
The discussion the regional hydrogeologic setting is largely based on the USGS
study Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System in the Up-
per Deschutes Basin (Lite and Gannett, 2002).
5.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology
The USGS study identified several hydrogeologic units, as shown on Figure 5-3.
A hydrogeologic unit may consist of a single geologic unit with distinct hydraulic
properties or portions of one or more geologic units grouped together because of
similar hydraulic properties.
The following table summarizes the hydrogeologic units of the UDB. Additional
description of the regional hydrogeology is included in Appendix A.
MarkYinger {T}FTI{WEFT
knd&lTiaEr" rxc
ASS0CtAIIS L7 &Cs(rTllhrt ll H!drql4Dl{8t
Hvdroqeologic Unit Description
Quaternary sediments sand and ravel low
Cascade and Newberry
volcanic deposits
Fractured lava flows and tephra, moderately to very permeable
lnactive margin dePosits Fine grained facies of the Deschutes on deposited
the eastern of the basin low
Ancestral Deschutes
River channel deposits
Coarse sand, gravels and
Deschutes River channel
intra-canyon lava flows, ancient
deposit facies of the Deschutes Formation,
Proximal deposits Fractured lava flows, flow breccias and coarse
Deschutes Formation, moderately permeable
tephra facies of the
Arc-adjacent alluvial Plain
deposits
lava flows, sandstone and conglomerate facies of the
F
Pre- Deschutes Forma-
tion deposits
Pervasively altered volcanic and volcaniclastic deposits of the John
Day Formation, includes hydrothermally altered rock at depth be-
neath Cascades and low
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
The Deschutes Formation is the primary aquifer in the UDB. It has been subdi-
vided into four hydrogeologic uniis. These units generally relate to the source of
material deposited and the depositional environment-
5.4.2 Local HydrogeologY
The Deschutes Formation is also the primary aquifer in the Cline Buttes and
Thornburgh resort area. The nearest large-capacity wells are those of the Eagle
Crest destination resort, located about I mile east of Cline Buttes. They appear to
produce water from Deschutes Formation sandstone beneath basalt flows-
reportedly 300 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). One Eagle Crest well (DESC
54485,Appendix B) located about a half mile north of the northern butte pene-
trates, starting at the surface,242 feet of basalt, then 360 feet of "multi-colored
rock," and then confined water in sandstone (Figure 5-2). The multicolored rock
that varies from soft to hard may be material of the rhyolite dome's debris apron.
Wells (DESC 9358 and 9359) in the Crest Ridge development, about 2 miles
northeast of the northern butte, produce over 100 gpm from Deschutes Formation
sandstone.
Few wells appear to intersect the rhyolite dome complex. DESC 756,located up
the south slope of the tallest butte, is the highest elevation well in the area (Figure
5-2). This well appears to penetrate 550 to 830 feet of rhyolite and produces 10
gpm from a fractured lava at 830 to 880 feet beneath the strface. The water in the
fractured lava is confined, rising 100 feet above the top of the fractured lava, indi-
cating that the rhyolite is impermeable. An Eagle Crest well (DESC 1083), 1o-
cated along Cline Falls Highway about a mile east the summit of the buttes, pene-
trates lavas and'ofock" to 460 feet and then from 460 to 800 feet brown and gray
"andesite" variably described as soft, hard, and weathered. The andesite described
by the driller may be rhyolite. This well produced only 30 gpm. Wells one-half
UlarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
xsRTt{wEsr
Iand&T'alee lxc
18 &Cdilrclllr+ in Htrl**aol0{t
CASE STUDYi THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
mile farther east encounter water-bearing Deschutes Formation sandstone at shal-
lower depths.
The permeability of the Cline Butte rhyolite is likely significantly lower than that
of surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. Repeated episodes of argillic and
siliceous hydrothermal alteration have filled fractures, reducing its initial fracture-
dependent porosity and permeability. A zone of argillic and siliceous alteration is
also likely to extend into the surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks, reduc-
ing their original permeability. It has been stated that the rhyolite of Cline Butte
and the rhyodacite lava flows near Steelhead Falls (approximately 8 miles north)
are more permeable than the surrounding material (Sherrod et a1.,2002; Ganneff
et al., 2001). There is good evidence to support this statement for the rhyodacite
lava flows of Steelhead Falls, but not for the hydrothermally altered rhyolite of
Cline Buttes. Water levels in wells that penetrate the sandstones and conglomer-
ates around Cline Buttes are higher on the south/southeast side (the upgradient
side of the buttes), and lower by approximately 100 feet on the northwest side.
This is what would be expected if the rhyolite represented a zone of significantly
lower hydraulic conductivity. If the rhyolite of Cline Buttes were much more
permeable than the surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks, the groundwa-
ier gradient would be much flaffer across the dome complex; however, this is not
the case.
In contrast, what remains of the debris apron around the dome complex will have
a much higher permeability than the rhyolite and, to a lesser degree, than the
sandstone and conglomerate. Because of the very sparse subsurface data in the
area, itis impossible to reliably estimate the extent of the debris apron and its ex-
tent of saturation. We suspect the debris apron is limited in its lateral extent.
5.4.3 Hydrogeologic Units & Hydraulic Properties
In this study, we use the USGS groundwater flow model for the UDB to simulate
the stress of the pumping of the wells proposed for the Thornburgh destination re-
sort. The USGS defined a set of hydrogeologic units and used them to inform the
distribution of hydraulic properties within the flow model (Gannett and Lite,
2004). Figures 5-1 and 5-3 show the USGS units, which include:
) Quaternary sediments
) Quaternary volcanic deposits of the High Cascades and Newberry Volcano
) The four facies of the Deschutes Formation consisting of arc-adjacent alluvial
plain deposits
) Inactive margin deposits
MarkYinger
ASSOCIATES
X{IRTlItrIEST
Iand&Tif+kr, rxe
t9 ^?'Cdtrr?lllir{ ir Htdror.colt[]
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
) Ancestral Deschutes River channel deposits
) Proximal deposits
) Pre - Deschutes Formation rocks
Because of the lack of subsurface geologic data and the heterogeneous character
of the hydrogeologic units, hydraulic properties were not assigned to each unit.
Rather, the modelers considered the characteristics of the units in combination
with other data to define the distribution of hydraulic properties. This data in-
cluded aquifer tests, drillers' logs, specific-capacity tests, groundwater level
measurements, and published data specific to the basin or considered typical or
representative of the lithologies present in the basin. Gannet and Lite (200a) de-
scribe how they derived the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities and
storage coefficients for the model.
5.4.4 Spatial Variability
The Deschutes Formation is a complex hydrogeologic unit consisting of many
rock types; therefore, its hydraulic properties are expected to vary significantly,
both laterally and vertically. Preferred groundwater flow paths are formed by the
lava flows and coarse sand-and-gravel channel deposits that filled paleochannels
and canyons that crossed the depositional basin. These coarse sandstones, con-
glomerates, and fractured intra-canyon lava flows have very high permeabilities.
The Pelton basalt and the Opal Springs basalt of the Deschutes Formation are
very petmeable lava flows that filled paleocanyons cut by the ancestral Deschutes
River (Lite and Gannett, 2002).
5.5 Groundwater Flow System
5.5.1 Regional Recharge & Discharge Patterns
Groundwater flow pattems in the UDB are well documented in USGS studies
(Gannett et a1.,2001; Lite and Gannett, 2002; Gannett and Lite, 2004). Ground-
water flows from the region's primary recharge areas - the High Cascades and
Newberry volcano - in a northeasterly to northerly direction. These recharge ar-
eas receive the great majority of precipitation in the UDB, and the young, rela-
tively unweathered volcanic deposits of these areas are very permeable, allowing
rapid infiltration. The average annual recharge for the basin from 1993 to 1995
was approximately 3,500 cfs (Gannett et al., 2001).
Ma$IbeE
!{CRTI'WEST
knd&Wabr, rxq
ASSOCIATES 20 &cunralri(g i. H!&oltrolrBi
CASE STUDV: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
The first large discharges of groundwater occur along the lower slopes of the Cas-
cades to spring-fed streams. These include the upper Deschutes River, above
Wickiup Reservoir, Fall River, Spring River, and the upper Metolius River. Some
segments of the Deschutes River between Sunriver and Bend gain water from
groundwater discharges; others lose water. However, gains significantly exceed
losses. ln the Bend area, water is diverted from the Deschutes River into unlined
irrigation canals that extend to north of Madras. The canals that leak at the great-
est rate are located in the Bend area and to the north and east of Bend. For the
year l994,leakage from canals was estimated at 490 cfs-about 46 percent of the
water diverted into the canals (Ganneff et al., 2001).
From Bend downstream to the Lower Bridge area the Deschutes River has both
reaches with small gains and small losses, and the flows varied from 29 to 44 cfs
(Gannett, 2001). Between Lower Bridge and Whychus Creek, the river begins to
gain from spring discharges, however there are reaches with small gains and
reaches with small losses (McSwain, 2007). Seepage along this section of the
Deschutes is discussed in more detail in Section 6. From approximately Lower
Bridge north to Lake Billy Chinook, the Deschutes gains about 390 cfs from
groundwater discharge. The lower Crooked River gains about 1,100 cfs. Ground-
water discharge to Lake Billy Chinook is estimated at 420 cfs. This large dis-
charge of groundwater in the confluence area occurs because the permeable
Deschutes Formation thins against the relatively impermeable John Day Forma-
tion as it nears the surface and eventually outcrops in the Deschutes canyon l0
miles north of Lake Billy Chinook (Gannett etal.,200l).
5.5.2 Proposed Resort Area
In the Thornburgh resort area, groundwater flows in a northwesterly direction.
The groundwater elevation in Deschutes Formation wells is generally 2,700 to
2,7 50 feet on the southeast side of Cline Buttes and about 2,600 feet on the
northwest side (Figure 5-2). This drop of 100 to 130 feet over a distance of about
3.5 miles is significantly steeper than the regional gradient indicated by the USGS
study (Gannett and Lite, 2004).
Hydrothermal alteration associated with the rhyolite dome complex and its vol-
canic conduits likely has reduced the permeability of the rhyolite and adjacent
Deschutes Formation volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. In contrast, a debris apron
around the dome complex consisting of broken rock shed off the steep flanks of
the domes, tephra, and very broken lavas and agglomerate is likely significantly
more penneable than the either the rhyolite or the rocks of the Deschutes Forma-
tion.
l{arkY_ugE
XORTII[TEST
tand & ltrIate$ ,,{fl
ASSOCIATES 2L ^?.
Crd.5trh1i h Htdt{f;col(!}
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
There are extensive irrigation canal networks approximately 2.5 miles south of the
Cline Buttes and along the east side of the Deschutes River from Bend to about
six miles north of Redmond. In these areas, leakage from canals and irrigation
water lost to deep percolation recharges groundwater. A very small portion of the
canal leakage discharges to the middle Deschutes River. From just north of Bend
to Odin Falls, approximately 4 miles north of Cline Buttes, the estimated gain to
the Deschutes River is only 6.5 cfs and this gain has been attributed to return flow
from leaky irrigation canals (Gannett et al., 2001).
MarkYinggl
riog.Tl{'rsE5T
landl&WflkB lHc'
ASSOCIATES ?2 ^?.
Cffirlldn+ li HldrtB{Dla8t
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
6.0 Recent Hydrologic Data
The USGS study reported precipitation, groundwater level, streamflow, and water
use data. For this study, we compiled recent data and compared it to the USGS
data. This section describes the result of this comparison and summarizes sheam
temperature and habitat data. Discussion of how trends in recent hydrologic data
may impact water resources is discussed in Section 12.
6.1 Precipitation
Precipitation is the sorrce of groundwater recharge. Since gtoundwater feeds
parts of the Deschutes River, any reductions in recharge eventually translate to
reduced streamflows, which can affect stream temperature and fish habitat. Re-
charge can be profoundly affected by climate change, which can decrease either
the amount or duration of snow pack or the amount of precipitation that infiltrates
into aquifers.
The USGS used precipitation data for the years 1993 to 1995 to calculate
groundwater recharge for its regional model. This data was obtained from six sites
in the UDB. For this study, we examined precipitation data from water year 1990
through 2007 for the same six sites.
6.1.1 Data Source
Precipitation data is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)
at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas. Data is available for purchase by
internet downloada. Data for the six sites used by the USGS was purchased from
the WRCC for the period 1990 to 2007. These sites are shown on Figure 6-1.
6.1 .2 Method
Data include maximum, minimum, and average temperature; total precipitation;
precipitation, snowfall, snow depth, and date. Data were compiled in an Access
o http t //rw*. wrcc. dri. edu
ASSOCIAIES 23 ^&.MarkYinger
XQBTH!UEFT
tand & $aier, rxc
Con,.,r','ffilffi
CASE STUDY! THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
database and a "water year"-fte l2-month period from October 1 through Sep-
tember 30-was assigned to each date.)
Total precipitation was summarized for water years 1991 through 2007 at each of
the six sites. Snowfall data was summarized for Wickiup Dam, the site with high-
est elevation, to help assess trends in the snow pack that recharges groundwater
and provides surface runoff to streams. Table 6-1 summarizes annual precipita-
tion at the six sites; Figure 6-2 shows annual precipitation trends. Figure 6-3
shows the number of days per water year with snow pack greater than 0 inches at
Wickiup Dam.
6.1.3 Results
ln general, the recent data indicate significantly less precipitation than the 1993-
1995 data, the period used for the USGS model. The data for Wickiup Dam sug-
gests that climate change may be reducing snow pack, but it is inconclusive.
6.2 Groundwater Levels
Groundwater levels were monitored throughout the basin and reported by the
USGS for over 85 wells (Caldwell and Truini, 1997). The OWRD continued to
monitor groundwater levels in 14 wells throughout the UDB (Gannett and Lite,
2001). Of these, about eight are in the vicinity of the proposed Thornburgh devel-
opment and were considered in this section; these well locations are shown on
Figure 6-1. The data was downloaded from the OWRD website and used to pre-
pare water-level hydrographs. The long-term water level hydrographs were then
reviewed, and recent trends data were compared to trends discussed by USGS
(Gannett et al., 2001).
6.2.1 Data Sources & Methods
The locations of OWRD observation wells in the vicinity of the proposed Thorn-
burgh development were identified using GIS data. The shape fie,wells.shp,was
5 The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. Thus,
the year ending September 30, 1992, is the 1992 water year.
IVIarkYinger
ASS0CtAIES
XSRT'IVESTtand&WaEs rl,{s.
24 &,,Cilrnllhr{ li H!\t{.idol(d7
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
obtained from the OWRD website6. All available water level data for the
Deschutes basin was obtained from OWRD7.
Sixteen observation wells were identified in the vicinity of Thomburgh. Eight of
these wells were included in the OWRD water-level database and were evaluated
for this report (Figure 6-1). Hydrographs for these wells are shown on Figures 6-
4 through 6-12.
Although each observation well has a different period of record, the same time
scale was used for each hydrograph to compare trends. The longest period of re-
cord,I97?-present, was used for each hydrograph. Each hydrograph includes the
OWRD well name (a number preceded by DESC, the identifier for Deschutes
County). The well's depth and its corresponding USGS identifier are noted paren-
thetically if the data was included in the database.
6.2.2 Discussion
The USGS investigation of hydrology of the UDB (Gannett et al., 2001) reports
that, in general, large-scale water-level flucfuations reflect responses to weather
patterns. Groundwater levels rise after periods of high precipitation and decline in
response to drought conditions. The USGS modeling report (Gannett and Lite,
2004) cites the 2001 report:
"There is no evidence to suggest that the regional groundwater system in the
UDB is not in long-term equilibrium with the natural climate cycles and human
activity. For example, no long-term water level declines due to pumping were
observed in the data, and (with few exceptions) groundwater discharge meas-
urements show trends that can be related only to climate."
This conclusion is based on hydrographs presented in the USGS report (Truini,
1997), which show cyclic water-level trends with rising and declining limbs last-
ing no more than about 5 to 7 years and complete cycle durations lasting about a
decade. Although the USGS conclusions may be correct for the observed period,
they may not reflect current conditions, which are likely affected by factors other
than climate. The hydrographs for the wells near the Thornburgh project have
presented an opportunity to revisit old data and to assess recent hends by incorpo-
rating new data that has been collected over the last decade.
u http, //-w..wrd. state. or.us/Oll/RD/GWwell -data. shtml
' http : //www l .wrd. s tate. or.us /groundwater/o bswe ll s /data/owrd -wls. txt
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIAIES
:.OSTIIWEFT
knd&tVeBs rxe
crrr'!l!in* i6 tl!ilt(t.olo8l25IL
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATTON
6.2.3 Results
Two hydrographs show cyclic trends and five show a declining trend since 1993.
Two show a difference between older and recent data that appears inconsistent
with cyclic trends, but data between the two periods is missing. These trends are
detailed in the next few sections of this report. In addition, data collected since
1997 suggest that some observation wells reflect declining water level trends that
are inconsistent with the decadal trends resulting from climate variation.
6.2.3.1 Declining Water Level Trends
Figures 6-4 through 6-8 (wells DESC 3903,3949,3581,8626,1957) are hydro-
graphs that show consistent declining trends since about 1994. DESC 3903 (Fig-
ure 6-4) has the longest period of record, from 1972 to about 1994, and shows
fluctuating water levels typical of the decadal trends that reflect climate variation
until about 1994. During this period, the maximum change in water level is less
than about l0 feet. However, after 1994, water levels continue to decline for 12
years, with a slight flattening from 1996 to 2002. This pattern differs from the
previous 22years. Figure 6-5 (DESC 3949) has limited early data, in about 1979,
and then a complete record from about 1993 through 2007. Because of this large
hiatus, the trend between 1980 and 1994 is unclear. However, it is clear that there
is a consistent downward trend from 1993 through 2006, with a flattening be-
tween about 1997 and2003, similar to DESC 3903.
The declining trend in these observation wells is inconsistent with a cyclic pat-
tern, suggesting that water levels may be responding to other factors. The water
level decline is likely a response to not only climate change but also to groundwa-
ter pumping at rates in excess of the recharge rate.
6.2.3.2 Cyclic Water Level Trends
Figure 6-9 (DESC 3193), Figure 6-10 (DESC 3614), and the early parts of Fig-
ures 6-4 and 6-8 show cyclic water level trends. In these wells, water level fluctu-
ates up and down. Each period of rise or fall lasts for 3 to 6 or more years; each
cycle lasts approximately 10 years. The maximum and minimum values follow a
flat trend, hovering around a consistent water level. This pattern is typical for
wells that respond to the cyclic fluctuations of climate, with decreasing trends
corresponding to periods of drought and increasing trends corresponding to par-
ticularly wet years.
26 &.Cior{lS{* !n H!dRir0lo0t
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATE$
IrtoRTutrrEsT
land&WcEa rx*
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
6.2.3.3 Differences between Older & Recent Data
Figures 6-11 and 6-12 (DESC 53714 and 386) have insufficient data to establish
a clear trend. However, recent water levels are significantly lower in both wells
than they were during the early period of record. For Figure 6-11 (DESC 53714),
the data from about 1995 to 2005 suggests a cyclic or slight decline, but water
levels during the entire l0-year period are more than 16 feet lower than they were
from about 1990. Similarly, for DESC 386, the data point from 1995 is more than
l0 feet lower than the data point in 1975. Figures 6-5 and 6-8 also exhibit a sig-
nificant difference between older data collected from 1978-1980 and recent data;
the early data does not fit as part of the trend of the later data, but can only be ex-
plained by a declining trend.
6.3 Streamflow
The USGS reported streamflow data for the UDB available through 1997 (Gan-
nett et a1.,2001) and used the data to develop the groundwater flow model (Gan-
neff and Lite,2004). For this investigation, we compiled data available through
water year 2007 for selected streams. These hydrographs are presented in this sec-
tion. They provide current information and show the dramatic increase in stream-
flow between the headwaters of the Deschutes River and locations downgradient
near Madras. Stream-gauging sites were selected based on data availability and
location.
Figure 6-13 shows the map of stream-gauging stations from the 2001 USGS re-
port. Stations with data presented in this report are circled. Data from two stations
on the Deschutes River- Lower Bridge near Terrebon and Cline Falls-are in-
cluded in this report but not covered in the USGS report. Although these stations
have limited data, we have included them because their locations are important to
understanding the groundwater flow system.
6.3.1 Data Source & Methods
Tabular electronic streamflow data was provided by either the Oregon Water Re-
sources Department or the USGS8.
Hydrographs were plotted for the 11 selected gauging stations. Figures 6-14
through 6-24 are presented in order from upgradient to downgradient. Stations
t http : //www l.wrd.state.or.us/cgi-bin/choosegage.pl? huc: I 7 07 03 0 I
h t tp : //w at erd at a.u s gs. gov/nwis/sw
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
*CRTiIWEST
knd&Wate4 B{e
con,'r,rn*iffiiliiil^L
Cnsr Sruov: THoRNBURGU RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
were selected to show the change in streamflow of the Deschutes River as dis-
tance away from the headwaters increases. Stations on tributaries Whychus Creek
and Tumalo Creek were included because they contain important fish resources
near the proposed Thornburgh project.
6.3.2 Discussion
Hydrographs for all the gauging stations show a dramatic difference between the
high flows of winter/spring and low flows of summer/early fall. In general, the
low-flow conditions represent summer/early fall baseflow, when the stream is fed
primarily by groundwater. High flow conditions occur when the stream is fed by
groundwater, precipitation runoff, and/or snowmelt. Each hydrograph shows that
baseflow dominates total streamflow beginning in about May and reaches its low-
est flow in August or September. The relative impact of declining groundwater
levels is significantly greater under baseflow conditions than under higher flows;
therefore, this discussion focuses on the baseflow conditions shown in the hydro-
graphs.
Gauging stations at Crescent Creek, Deschutes below Wickiup, and Little
Deschutes at La Pine (Figures 6-14,6-15, and 6-16) represent streamflow in the
most upgradient portion of the basin. Baseflow at these sites is commonly about
2010 cfs at Deschutes below Wickiup, 5-10 cfs at Crescent Creek, and 30-60
cfs at Little Deschutes near La Pine. Gauging stations on the Deschutes at Ben-
ham Falls, Bend, Cline Falls, Lower Bridge, near Culver, and near Madras illus-
trate how flows increase with distance in the downgradient direction. Low-flow
conditions are commonly about 500 cfs at Benham Falls, 4G-85 cfs near Bend,
40-10 cfs near Lower Bridge, 500 cfs near Culver, and 3,500-3,800 cfs near Ma-
dras.
This hend shows that the most dramatic increase in groundwater discharge to the
Deschutes River-about 3,000 cfs-occurs between Culver and Madras. Al-
though baseflow increases from less than 50 cfs at the most upgradient gauging
stations to 500 cfs at Culver, it decreases by about 400 cfs as it moves downgradi-
ent from Benham Falls (about 500 cfs) to near Bend (about 100 cfs). Because the
data for the Deschutes at Cline Falls is old, no direct comparison to nearby gaug-
ing stations is possible. Likewise, the data record for Lower Bridge is relatively
short, but its hydrograph is consistent with low baseflow conditions for Deschutes
at Bend.
Gannett and Lite (2001) report that the most substantial stream losses measured in
the basin occur on the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Bend. Stage
and flow rate in this reach is reported to be controlled by reservoir operations up-
stream. Gannett and Lite report that streamflow is highest from April to October,
MarkYinggl {6RTfiq'DSTl€nd&ilbkrj rxc.
ASSOCIATES 2S &cr.rihlilr, in H!'l*Beoldgf
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
when water is released from reservoirs for canal diversions near Bend. However,
Gannett and Lite (2004) acknowledge that there is a losing reach between Ben-
ham Falls and Bend, reporting losses of about 90 cfs, based on a long-term data
record (1945-1995); this is likely due to irrigation diversions.
The hydrograph for the Deschutes at Benham Falls shows high flows during the
typical low-flow season, from about May to early October. At Bend, high flow
occurs during the wet season, from late fall through spring. Streamflow at Ben-
ham Falls is affected by reservoir operations, while streamflow at Bend is affected
by inigation diversions. Regardless of the reason, baseflow in the Deschutes
River from Bend to Lower Bridge is the lowest flow in the middle Deschutes
River and is about 100 cfs.
6.4 Groundwater Use
Monthly pumping data from both public and large private water supply purveyors
was summarized for 1997 through 2006. This data was then compared to usage
during the period of record for the USGS groundwater flow model (Gannett and
Lite,2004).
6.4.1 Data Sources & Methods
Groundwater use data for public systems from 1997 through 2006 was acquired
from an OWRD online databasee. We also obtained from OWRD water use data
for private systems in the central portion of the UDB. Data was provided in elec-
tronic format and is generally reported in million gallons (MGals). Some water
purveyors report water use in cubic feet; these data were converted to MGals.
Pumping records were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and compiled into an
Access database. Appendix C summarizes public and private water use data. Ta-
ble C-l lists monthly water use for each year for each public supply well included
in this analysis; Table C-2 lists monthly water use for each private supply well.
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarizethe total combined monthly and annual wateruse
for public and private wells, respectively. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 are for public and
private wells, respectively, and summarize the annual water use for each well,
making it easy tosee trends and identiff data gapslO.
o http, // ..w.wrd. s t at e. or. u s /O WD/l(Nw ater us e -rep ort. s hnn I
t0 Although pumpage was reported, it was never entered into OWRD's database because of resource constraints
MarkYinggl xsRTriwrisT
land&WaE, lxc
ASSOCIATES 29 ^dh,Cr(ral!ldr.. itr H!{r4X4al(8t
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
Because the missing data affects the annual totals, we had to estimate pumpage to
assess trends in public water use. For example, Table 6-2 indicates that pumping
from public supply wells was 2,546 MGals in 2006 and 3,533 MGals in 2005.
However, Table 6-4 indicates that data is missing for 12 wells in 2006, even
though pumping occurred. If 2005 pumpage values were applied to the missing
2006 data, Table 6-2 would show 3,891 MGals instead of 2,546. Similarly for
2004, data was not reported for 19 wells. If 2003 values were applied to 2004, an-
nual water use would be 4,796 MGals, instead of the 1,642 shown on Table 6-2.
6.4.2 Results
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 show that public and private water use has increased signifi-
cantly since 1997, and that it differs from the estimates in the USGS model, which
used 31 cfs, or 7,369 million gallons per year (MGY) for pumping from public
supply and irrigation wells. Trends in public and private water use show a com-
bined increase of as much as 4,000 MGY (17.0 cfs) since 1997.
6.5 Seepage Data
Seepage data provides important information about the relationship between a
stream and the adjacent groundwater system. ln areas where the stream elevation
lies above the water table, water seeps from the stream into the aquifer along a
"losing" reach. Conversely, where the stream elevation is below the water table,
water seeps from the aquifer system into the stream along a"gaining" reach. Con-
sequently, when groundwater levels decline along gaining reaches, streamflow
also declines. Along losing stream reaches, seepage to the underlying aquifer in-
creases, provided the stream is not perched above the aquifer.
Seepage can be estimated by measuring streamflows at points located a few to
several miles apart over a relatively short period. Other factors are considered in
developing seepage estimates, including reach length, diversions, and tributary in-
flows. Because seepage data is collected over a relatively short period, it repre-
sents a snapshot of both the rate and distribution of groundwater inflow to, or
leakage from, a stream.
Seepage runs conducted by the OWRD in the UDB are reported by the USGS
(Gannett and Lite, 2001). More recently, the OWRD and BLM have measured
seepage. This section of the report discusses recent data, which were analyzed and
compared to results reported by the USGS in 2001.
MarkYingq !{QRTII1r'EST
Iand & lVaFr, rut:
ASS0CtAlES 30 &Ceiri{Lir+ tu lirdrottolt8t
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
6.5.1 Data Sources & Method
The results of seepage runs conducted by the OWRD during the period from1992
to 1994 are reported by the USGS (Gannett and Lite, 2001). The BLM contracted
with the USGS to collect seepage data on luly 12,2005, at seven sites from
Deschutes River below Bend to near Culver; this data was provided to us on a CD
(McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). The OWRD collected seepage data on August 3
and 4,2005. This preliminary data was provided in the form of an Excel spread-
sheet (McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). Appendix D contains tabulated seepage
data from each ofthese sources.
The recent BLM and OWRD data were compared and appeared consistent with
each other. Because the BLM data does not include tributary discharge measure-
ments, gains at Deschutes below Whychus Creek could not be fairly compared.
Therefore, the OWRD data set was analyzed for this study because it was larger.
Reach length was calculated as the difference in river miles between measurement
locations. Seepage rate along a stream reach between two adjacent measurement
sites was calculated by subtracting the upgradient measurement and tributary in-
flow (if any) from the downgradient measurement. The seepage rate per river mile
was calculated by dividing the total reach seepage by the reach length.
We used ArcMap, a geographic information system, to map the seepage meas-
urement points and identiff them by river mile (RM), as shown on Figure 6'25.
The site description that corresponds to the river mile is included in the table in
Appendix D. Figure 6-25 shows the calculated seepage rate between each desig-
nated river mile using a color-coded gainlloss value; total seepage per stream
reach is also noted.
6.5.2 Results
Figure 6-25 indicates that minimal groundwater inflow occurs into the Deschutes
River between Bend (RM 164) and Lower Bridge (RM 134). The Deschutes gains
flow from Lower Bridge to RM 128.7, and then loses some flow again from RM
128.7 to RM 126.1. Gains are then mild from RM 126.1 to RM 124.9, strong from
RM 124.9 to RM 123.3, and mild to RM 120 near Culver. Downgradient from
Culver, the Deschutes gains strongly, as shown by the streamflow hydrographs
between Culver and Madras. These gains and losses are important to understand-
ing how declining groundwater levels may affect flows to or from a particular
reach.
The USGS reports discharge measurements at 19 stations along the Deschutes
River from Bend to Culver (Table 5; Gannett and Lite, 2001). These measure-
ments were used to estimate gains or losses for larger stream reaches that extend
MarkYinggl 1{CRTtrWri9Ttand & lValer, rxq
ASSOCIATES 3t"&Cdrir{lrl!i, itr HIfi eBeolt0f
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsouRcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
over many stations. Color is used to indicate the seepage rate per RM, and a num-
ber indicates the total gain or loss along a reach (Table 7 and Figure 12; Gannett
and Lite,2001). Although this map shows general pattems of groundwater inflow
to streams in the UDB, it may be misleading because combining the individual
measurements results in a loss of important detail. For example, the reach from
RM 130.5 to RM 120 combines results for seven sub-reaches and indicates sig-
nificant inflow of 305 cfs. However, of the seven sub-reaches, two have signifi-
cant inflow, one is losing, one has zero inflow, and three have mild inflow of less
than 20 cfs. This breakdown is similar for the OWRD data, except that two of the
sub-reaches were losing in 2005.
Figure 6-25 shows that the reach sections in the vicinity of Thornburgh, between
Bend and Whychus Creek, are characteizedby both losing and gaining condi-
tions. Most of these sections have relatively small gains or losses; only a few
short sections have significant inflow rate. It is likely that within a river section
characteized by a "loSS" there are sub-sections within it where gains, or inflow,
occurs.
6.6 Stream Temperature
Stream temperature, a critical factor in fish viability, provides useful information
about r..pagr into a streamll. Groundwater inflow to streams can be identified
from a temperature profile. Groundwater has a relatively constant temperature
that is cooler than the water in streams-particularly in the summer, during low-
flow conditions, when consistent groundwater inflow is critical. Conversely,
where groundwater inflow does not occur, stream temperature increases down-
gradient.
Thermal infrared (TIR) remote sensing, a reliable method for measuring stream
temperature, was used to survey selected streams in the UDB in late July 2001.
The survey was conducted for ODEQ, and the TIR results reported in Aerial Sur-
veys in the Deschutes River Basin - Thermal Infrared and Color Videography
(Watershed Sciences, 2002).
6.6.1 Data Source & Method
A complete set of project data and a report was provided by ODEQ. This data was
mapped using ArcMap as shown on Figure 6-26.
tt Stream temperatures below 15"C are requiredfor bull trout habitat'
32 &Csnrrlil!* ilr ff !JroteDlo8l
n{arklnngq
ASS0CtAIES
!{sFT!{WEST
Land&WeF-rxq
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
6.6.2 Discussion
This discussion describes the general temperature distribution and focuses on
Whychus Creek and the part of the Deschutes near the Thornburgh resort.
Stream temperature ranged from 3.5 to 28.0"C during the temperature survey in
July 2001. In general, cool stream temperatures-below l4oC-occur mostly at
higher elevations along the headwaters of tributaries to the Deschutes, in the up-
permost reaches of the Deschutes, and throughout most of the Metolius. The
warmest stream temperafure, over 26"C, occurs in Whychus Creek and in the
Deschutes just downstream from Redmond.
ln general, temperatures increase gradually as the stream flows downgradient;
abrupt temperature decreases occur periodically. The temperature distribution
along the stream reaches shown in Figure 6-26 is consistent with the seepage data
(Figure 6-25). Abrupt temperature decreases correspond to locations where
stream inflow from groundwater is moderate to significant. From its cool headwa-
ters, the Deschutes increases in temperature as it flows downstream and hovers
between 14" and l8oC until a few miles upgradient from Bend. From above Bend,
temperafure continues to increase to as much as 26"C and exceeds 22"C for most
of the reach from Bend to about RM 130. Little change occurs until about RM
134, where temperature starts to decrease slightly but stays above zA"C. This first
slight decrease corresponds to the location of the first reach with moderate
groundwater inflow. Temperature decreases significantly, to below 16"C, down-
gradient from RM 130.5, where significant inflow occurs (Figure 6-25). Tem-
perature increases again to more than 19oC until about RM 124, and then de-
creases abruptly, falling to about l5"C at the confluence with Whychus Creek.
This decrease corresponds to the reach with the largest groundwater inflow.
Stream temperature increases again as the Deschutes flows downstream from
Whychus Creek and then stays at about l'l"C, until the endpoint of the tempera-
ture survey on the Deschutes River, RM 120.
In Whychus Creek, temperature is below l4oC from its headwaters to just up-
stream from Sisters; temperature continues to increase from Sisters, reaching over
26"C for several miles. Whychus Creek starts to cool significantly at about 2
miles upstream from the confluence with the Deschutes. It is likely that the hy-
drogeologic conditions that cause strong groundwater inflow to the Deschutes
near the confluence with Whychus Creek also cause this significant decrease in
temperature.
Temperatures in the Deschutes River, near the Thornburgh resort, and in Why-
chus Creek upstream of Alder Springs (about two miles above its confluence with
the Deschutes) are relatively high, exceeding by more than 10"C the optimal
maximum of 15oC for bull and native redband trout. It is apparent from Figures
Mark Yingq
ASSOCIAIES
xsRTiltrrEsT
tand&.ffakr- rxc
33 ^L Cvfriellift4 ia H!droBeol(8t
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
6-25 and6-26that groundwater inflow is critical to maintaining cool stream tem-
peratures.
MarkYinggl
[$$0clArEs
I{OBTHgEST
lard&lryetsr. E{s-
ConblrlIt l! t{liro#oln{t34A
CASE STUDY3 THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER ITESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
7.0 Groundwater Flow Modeling
The USGS modeling report (Gannett and Lite, 2004) states,
"In the Upper Deschutes Basin, the principal source of water to pumped wells
once equilibrium has been attained is diminished streamflow."
We used the USGS model, with a few modifications, to evaluate the magnitude
and distribution of impacts resulting from pumping the proposed Thornburgh
wells. It predicts affects on streamflow in specific reaches of the Deschutes River
and Whychus Creek, and on groundwater levels in the proposed project vicinity.
These reaches on the Deschutes River include Bend to RM 149 and Odin Falls to
Whychus Creek, and the lower part of Whychus Creek.
This section describes our model simulations and results. Groundwater VistasrM
(version 5) was used to run the MODFLOW simulations conducted to evaluate
potential impact of groundwater withdrawal from the proposed Thomburgh wells.
Groundwater Vistas, developed by Jim Rumbaugh of Environmental Simulations,
lnc., is a graphical user interface for three-dimensional flow- modeling software
that allows users to prepare input files, run MODFLOW with a variety of solvers
including ModSURFACTTM, and process output files. ModSURFACT uses
MODFLOW code with a proprietary solver developed by Hydrologic.
7.1 Description of the USGS Model
The original USGS groundwater flow model for the UDB is described here
briefly. For more details, refer to the modeling report (Gannett and Lite, 2004),
which contains detailed descriptions and maps of all the model components.
The USGS model was "constructed" using the modular, three-dimensional, finite-
difference, groundwater model MODFLOW, developed by McDonald and Har-
baugh (1988). A "constructed" model consists primarily of input files that contain
information on the properties of the modeled area. Some properties describe the
physical attributes of the area-such as its geometry, boundary conditions, and
thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the geologic strata. Other properties de-
scribe the "sources" and "sinks" of water to the gtoundwater flow system-
recharge, streams, and pumping wells. Once these files are created, MODFLOW
was run to simulate groundwater flow under the conditions described by the input
file. Simulation output includes groundwater elevations and streamflows.
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
iloBT1ltrtE5Tland&Watsr, lxe
35 &,am.lild{ ltr Ht'!r{tadl.8t
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
7 .1.1 Grid
The UDB's gloundwater flow system is represented by a grid of cells: 87 north-
south trending columns and 127 east-west trending rows. The grid cell size is
smaller where the most hydrologic data is available and larger where less data is
available (the less populated places with fewer wells). Eight layers are used to
represent vertical changes in geology and allow simulation of vertical head gradi-
ents and groundwater movement. Each layer is of uniform thickness-I00 feet for
layers 1 through 5;200,300, and 800 feet, respectively, for layers 6,7, and 8. The
complex geology is represented by zones of hydraulic conductivity ranging from
less than 1 to more than 1,000 feeVday. In the Thornburgh property vicinity, hy-
draulic conductivity is higher in layers 3 through 7 than in layers I andZ.
7 .1.2 Pumping & Stream Nodes
The pumping well data used in the USGS model (Gannett and Lite, 2004) is dis-
cussed in detail in Gannet et al. (2001). The model considers only irrigation and
public supply wells. Pumpage for irrigation was reported to be about 20.4 cfs
(4,812 MGY) in 1994. Total pumpage for public supply was reported to be about
20.8 cfs (4,906 MGY) in 1996. The total pumping from wells in the input file,
des.wel.all, is 31 .2 cfs (7,369 MGY), using annual averaging for the steady-state
model to account for the seasonality of the irrigation pumping.
Grid cells that coincide with the location of significant streams were identified as
"stream cells," which occur in the top three model layers (1,2, and 3). Such a cell
is identified in layer 2 atlocations where the stream is incised to depths below the
bottom of layer 1. Similarly, a stream cell is identified in layer 3 at locations
where the stream is incised to depth below the bottom of layer 2. Seepage data
(Section 6.5) was used to identify the streamflow in each cell. Streamflow at a
given cell is head-dependent; in other words, it changes depending on the
groundwater level and the streambed conductance. If groundwater level in a cell
decreases, the streamflow component originating from the groundwater would
also decrease. Conversely, if groundwater level in a cell increases, streamflow in
that cell would also increase. Detailed discussion of the movement of groundwa-
ter to and from streams in the model is in Gannett and Lite (2004).
7 ,1.3 Recharge
Recharge to the ground-water system from infiltration of precipitation, canal
leakage, and deep percolation of applied irrigation water is simulated as specified
flux to the upper-most layer of the model. These recharge values vary from cell to
MarkYinger HWEST
Water, rx*'{$RTLand&
ASSOCIAIES 36 ,&Crnklili{i ih H!Jrot*olr{t
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
cell. The methods used to estimate recharge from all sources are described in de-
tail in Ganneff and others (2001).
7.1.4 Steady State & Transient Simulations
The USGS conducted both steady state and transient simulations. Steady state im-
plies that, except for rates for recharge, discharge, and streamflow, no time vari-
able is incorporated into the input or output files. In other words, wells pump at
the same rate the entire time, and the results represent equilibrium conditions.
Conversely, transient conditions consider time, so the input data may incorporate
wells that are pumping at certain rates for a certain amount of time. Similarly, re-
charge may occur at one rate during one year, or part of year, and a different rate
during a different year, or part of year. The period of the USGS' transient simula-
tion was from 1978 to 1997, using two time periods per year. The results of the
transient simulation apply to specific time periods.
7 .1.5 Calibration
The steady-state model was calibrated to the water-level contour map prepared
using measurements made between 1993 and 1997. During calibration, input pa-
rameters are adjusted until the model results are consistent with observed meas-
urements. Hydraulic conductivity was the primary parameter adjusted to achieve
calibration (Gannett and Lite, 2004).
7.2 Data Source for New Runs
The UDB groundwater flow model was obtained from the USGS (Gannett, pers.
comm., 2007), along with all data input and output. The six proposed Thornburgh
wells were located using a map along with the description included in the draft
permit to appropriate waters for application G-16385, issued to Thornburgh Util-
ity Group by OWRD. Each well location is described by a given distance in the
east-west and north-south directions from a specified section corner.
The pumping rate for each well was based on the withdrawal amount indicated in
the water right application. The draft permit is for an annual withdrawal of 2,355
acre-feet (about 767 MGals) and a maximum instantaneous withdrawal of 9.28 cfs
Mark Yingq t{ORTI{WESI
Iand&ThH, wc
ASS0CtAIES 37 ,fL Cdnrrlri!* ;d H!Jrdleolodt
CASE STUDYT THORNBURGIT RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
or 4,165 gpml2.For the steady-state model, a constant pumping rate of 3.25 cfs
was used, which is equivalent to the annual withdrawal of 2,355 acre-feet if the
well is pumped continuously for I year. The rate of 3.25 cfs, referred to in this re-
port as Q-average, was divided evenly between the six wells indicated on the draft
permit. The rate of 9.26 cfs is referred to as Q-max.
Pumpage was reported to be about 20.4 cfs (4,812 MGY) in 1994 for irrigation
and 20.8 cfs (4,906 MGY) in 1996 for public supply use (Gannett et al., 2001).
The steady-state model uses annual averaging to account for the seasonality of the
irrigation pumping. The total pumpage from wells in the USGS steady-state
model is 31.2 cfs (7,369 MGY).
7.3 Verification of USGS Steady'State Model
We verified the results of the USGS steady-state model by using the input files
from the simulation to run MODFLOW with Groundwater Vistas. We then com-
pared output to confirm that Groundwater Vistas yielded the same results as the
USGS MODFLOW software. The groundwater level in each cell/layer combina-
tion from the USGS output was subtracted from the corresponding gtoundwater
level we generated; the results indicated essentially no difference between our
output and the USGS output.
7.4 Steady State versus Transient Gonditions
The results of the steady-state and transient simulations are compared in the
USGS report (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Most impacts from pumping wells occur
on the Deschutes River after about 7 years (transient conditions); about 50 percent
of water pumped from the wells comes from storage and about 50 percent comes
from the stream. After 10 years, 58 percent is from diminished streamflow, and
after 42 years, 90 percent is from diminished streamflow. After about 10 years,
the cone of depression will have stabilized even if pumping is greater in the sum-
mer and less in the winter. The cone appears stable, with a local-scale contraction
and expansion that occurs in response to each pumping cycle. Therefore, steady
state is appropriate for evaluating the long-term effects of pumping from the pro-
posed Thornburgh wells on water levels and streamflow'
t2 Thefinal permit wis issuedfor 2,129 acre-feet (annual) and 9.97 cfs peakflow.
\{arhfiqgE
XO&1HCIE$T
land & ffaber. txc.
A$SOC{AIES 38 I}.Ccrr rlrltr{: ih H}dlottrolo8r
CASE STUDYI TIIORNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
7.5 Simulations with Proposed Thornburgh Wells
7.5.1 Method
Two simulations were conducted to evaluate the potential impacts of pumping
from the six proposed Thornburgh wells. Scenario 1 simulates pumping from
shallow wells in layer 2, and Scenario 2 simulates pumping from deep wells in
layer 7. The bottom of layer 2 is about 200 feet below land surface. The bottom of
layer 7 is more than 700 feet deep. Simulations were conducted using Q-average
and Q-max for each scenario. The six proposed wells were added to the well input
file, and Q-average or Q-max was divided evenly between them. Even though Q-
max is the permitted maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate (presumably for the
high-demand water use season), we used it to evaluate the upper limit of instanta-
neous impact on Deschutes River flow.
The specifics of how water would be pumped, distributed, applied (for domestic
and irrigation purposes), and treated (as wastewater) are currently unknown for
the proposed Thomburgh project. It is possible that a portion of the proposed pro-
ject wastewater could be ffeated and recharged to the groundwater system, poten-
tially offsetting some of the impact to river, and thereby.reducing the Q-average
and Q-max to values that reflect consumptive water.,s"t3. However, until a water
management plan is developed, we will assume that the Q-average and Q-max are
appropriate for our modeling.
The numerical solver, PCG5, was used for the simulations run during our study to
evaluate impacts from the proposed Thomburgh wells. To establish baseline con-
ditions, we used PCG5 with the USGS steady-state model. We then compared
these baseline results to the results from our simulations incorporating the pro-
posed Thornburgh wells.
Using ArcMap, the stream cells that lie within the reaches of concern on the
Deschutes and Whychus Creek were identified. A table with these cells was im-
ported into the database, and the simulation results for these cells were brought
into an Access database. For each stream cell, the baseline condition was sub-
tracted from simulation results to calculate diminished streamflow within these
reaches. Finally, we used ArcMap to map diminished streamflow for each stream
cell.
13 Consumptive uses result in a net loss to the hydrologic system. Water that is "lost" to evapotranspiration is con-
sidered consumptive use, for example.
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIAIES
$SRT''WEST
Iand&lVcierr wc.
39 re Cril!dltirg lr H!d!6reoltgl
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
7 .5.2 Results
7.5.2.1 DiminishedStreamflow
Table 7-1 summarizes diminished streamflow for Scenario I and2 within several
reaches: Bend to RM 149 on the Deschutes and Odin Falls to Whychus on the
Deschutes and lower Whychus Creek. Combined diminished streamflow within
these reaches is 2.33 cfs, or T2percent of total pumping, for Scenario I (from
shallow layers), and 2.08, or 64 percent or total pumping, for Scenario 2 (from
deep layers). Total diminished streamflow for the entire stream system (all the
stream cells) is 95.1 percent of total pumping for Scenario 1 and 99.7 percent of
total pumping for Scenario 2. The difference in evapotranspiration between base-
line conditions and Scenarios I and2 accounts for the 4.9o/o and 0.3% of total
pumping that does not manifest in diminished streamflow.
Figures 7-l and 7-2 show diminished streamflow for stream cells. Values less
than 0.01 are omitted. Diminished streamflows of 0.01 to 0.02 cfs are shown in
pink, and values of 0.02 to 0. I cfs are shown in dark red. The majority of dimin-
ished streamflow occurs within the reach from Odin Falls to Whychus (Squaw)
Creek, which has the most cells with values between 0.01 and 0.02 cfs. While di-
minished streamflow for each cell seems small and insignificant, it adds up to a
significant percentage of the total pumping amount.
Under Scenario 1, pumping from layer 2 wlll have a greater effect on shallow
groundwater levels than it will under Scenario 2, where pumping is from Layer 7.
Evapotranspiration is modeled as a head-dependent function. Therefore, when the
water level in a cell declines below the "extinction depth" of 5 feet, as the USGS
model assumes, no evapotranspiration occurs. As water levels decline under Sce-
nario 1, evapotranspiration is less than what occurs under the USGS assumptions,
and more water is "available" for the wells. Pumping from layer 7 does not affect
shallow groundwater as much, and therefore does not affect evapotranspiration.
7.5.2.2 Water Level Change
The change in water level, or the drawdown, due to pumping the proposed Thorn-
burgh wells was calculated for each layer under both scenarios. The new water
level elevation in each layer was subtracted from the corresponding baseline wa-
ter level, yielding results that are consistent with what is expected based on hy-
draulic conductivity in the vicinity of the Thornburgh wells.
Drawdown contours are shown on Figures 7-3 through 7-8. In general, drawdown
is similar for the two scenarios, except for layer 2. Contours are, in general, broad,
MarkYinggx
ASSOCIATES
r{oRTltwEsrLand&ffaeq rxc
4CI r?,Cro!ilil{a lt Hri.rtaokrtt
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
and maximum drawdown is less than I foot. Drawdown in the pumping layer is
significantly larger for Scenario I (layer 2, Figure 7-5) than for Scenario 2 (Iayer
7, Figure 7-8). Maximum &awdown is 8 feet in the pumping layer in Scenario I
(Figure 7-5) and 0.6 feet in Scenario 2 (FigureT-8). Maximum drawdown is 0.5
foot in layer 1. Contours are not shown for each scenario/layer combination be-
cause they are similar, but are shown for layer I because it is the most shallow,
and layers 2 andT because they are the layers from which modeled pumping oc-
curs.
Maximum drawdown is larger in layer 2 thanlayer 7 because hydraulic conduc-
tivity is lower in layer 2 in the Thomburgh vicinity. The thicknesses of layers 2
and layer 7 are 100 and 300 feet, respectively. Transmissivity, the ability of an
aquifer to transmit water to a well is the product of aquifer thickness and hydrau-
lic conductivity. Therefore, transmissivity is significantly larger for layer 7. While
maximum drawdown is only 0.4 feet in layer 2 for Scenario 2,the convoluted na-
ture of the contours illustrates the effect of lateral change in hydraulic conductiv-
ity. The large drawdown in layer 2 accounts for the larger impact to streamflow in
the selected reaches for Scenario 1 as compared to Scenario 2.
7.5.3 Effects of Recent Data on Model Results
7.5.3.1 HydrologicData
Data presented in Section 6.2 indicates that, locally, groundwater levels have de-
clined since the USGS investigation. Therefore, groundwater discharge to streams
will have decreased, resulting in diminished streamflow relative to baseline condi-
tions. Similarly, if climate change results in less precipitation and duration of
snow pack, then the groundwater system would receive less recharge-also re-
sulting in diminished streamflow relative to baseline conditions. Although the ab-
solute value of the impact to the stream from the proposed Thornburgh pumping
cannot exceed the Q-max (3.25 cfs), the impact as a percentage of streamflow will
increase as streamflow diminishes.
7.5.3.2 Geologic Data
Hydrothermal alteration associated with Cline Buttes rhyolite dome complex has
likely reduced the hydraulic conductivity of the rhyolite and adjacent Deschutes
Formation (Section 5.3.2). The reduced hydraulic conductivity likely occurs at
depth throughout the entire model-layer sequence. The conductivity of the altered
rhyolite and Deschutes Formation is likely to be significantly lower than that as-
signed in the model.
MarkYinggl
l{QRTttltt,:sr
land & \l'abr, lxc-
ASSOCIATES 4L &Cunklils* i0 H!iltqlol.!t
Clsr Sruov: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
The USGS model was calibrated by adjusting hydraulic conductivity; as such, the
conductivities assigned to the Cline Buttes area may yield the observed water
level measurements. However, if the low conductivity Cline Buttes rhyolite com-
plex occurs in the vicinity of the Thornburgh resort, water levels would decline
more locally in response to pumping-and the contours might resemble those for
layer 2, Scenario 1 (pumping from layer 2, Figure 7-5) instead of the broad con-
tours shown in Figures 7-3,7-4,7-7, andT-8.
7.5.3.3 Current & Future Water Use
Private water use in the central part of the UDB was 4,093 MGY (17.35 cfs) in
2003 and2,658 MGY (11.27 cfs) in 2006. Water use for public supply has in-
creased by more than 300 percent since 1997 (Tabte 6-2, Section 6.4). Water
right permits since 1998 have granted 44 cfs (Section 8). Considering these
trends, current withdrawals are significantly higher than the USGS model as-
sumed. Therefore, the impact to streamflow from pumping the Thornburgh wells
at3.25 cfs becomes a significantly larger percentage of streamflow if the stream-
flow rate decreases.
In addition, groundwater levels will likely decline as pumping from public and
private wells increases. Water rights applications since 1998 (117 cfs; 27,700
MGY) suggest that future use will be even greater. Pumping of this magnitude
can lower groundwater levels significantly, affecting streamflow and stream tem-
perafure.
The cumulative effect of pumping from both the Thornburgh and other pumping
wells will exceed the water level decline predicted by the model (Gannett and
Lite,2004).
ASSOCIATES 42 ^&'Cuor{lrln$ tu l{!drc8!oldgl
NlarkYinggl
1{ORTilWESIl
Land&Wakrl rilc
CASE STUDY3 THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
8.0 Water Rights Activity
8.1
This section presents an analysis of water rights activity in the study area. Water
rights provide important information about changes in current and future water
demands and usage. For this analysis, we examined trends in both recently
granted permits and recent applications.
Data Sources
Data was compiled from the OWRD website, which contains a database of all wa-
ter rights applications and permitsl4. We downloaded all applications and permits
in the UDB with a priority of later than lll/1998. Information included point of
diversions (POD), point of use, and stakeholder data. Point of diversion and
stakeholder data was downloaded to two separate tables. Township, range, and
section information is included for each water right and application. Data in shape
file format was also downloadedl5, along with POD and point-of-use data mapped
by oWRDr6.
Each record in the POD table corresponds to a unique water right, point of diver-
sion, and water use combination. Therefore, a single water right can have many
records if it covers several wells (points of diversion) and if each well has more
than one use. For example, the water right application for the proposed Thorn-
brrrgh development has six records in the water rights database-one for each
proposed well. Each well has only one use, quasi-municipal. If there were two
t1,pes of use for each well (inigation and municipal), there would be 12 records in
the database for that water right application. The terms of the water right permit
or application are given by the Q-average and the Q-max. If a well pumped the Q-
max rate 24 hours per day, everyday for the entire year, the volume withdrawn
would be significantly larger than the Q-average. Once the Q-average has been
met, no further withdrawals are permitted. Note that the Q-average is not shown
in the database. For this reason, water rights analysis was conducted on the Q-
max information.
For the Thornburgh development, the Q-max for the entire right !s 9.28 cfs. The
database shows this divided between six wells at 1.546 cfs eachrT.
1 a http : //apps 2.wrd. state. or.us/apps/wr/wrinfo /D efaul t. aspx
I 5 http : //www 1.wrd. state.or.usffiles/water-right -datat 6 http : //www. oregon. gov/owRD/ MAPS/index. shtml#l(ater _Right _Data _GIS _Themes
t7 ThePnal orderforThornburghnow has a 9.97 cfs max.
\{nrkYingE
{6RTItA'EFTl4nd & WatrEj rilc.
A$SOCIATES 43 re C!.rr*lrln* lo grJr(irol48t'
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
8.2 Method
The OWRD water rights data were brought into an Access database. Using
ArcMap, the township, range, and section information was summarized for the
area included within the USGS model area, which is a portion of the larger
Deschutes basin. Water rights permits and applications within the model area
were extracted. We summarized this data separately and further categorized it by
surface water or groundwater. We then calculated the total water use attributed to
each right.
Appendix E contains a complete list of water right identification numbers, prior-
ity dates, Q-max rates, and the stakeholder information; Table E-l lists applica-
tions and Table E-2 lists permits. The number of water rights per year and the an-
nual sum of the individual Q-max rates are summarized for groundwater permits
and applications, and for surface water permits and applications in Tables 8-1, I'
2,8-3, and 8-4, respectively.
8.3 Results & Discussion
The moratorium on granting water rights from 1998 to 2002 (Section 3.2) is
somewhat apparent in the number of water right permits and water use rate
granted each year (Table 8-1) and in the relatively small number of water right
applications (Table 8-2) during this time. The passage of H83494 in 2005 (Sec-
tion 3.2) is very apparent in the large number of water right applications and wa-
ter use requests (Table 8-2) from 2005 to 2007.
Based on water rights granted since 1998 (Table 8-l), Q-max withdrawals have
increased by as much as 44.14 cfs (10,414 MGY) since the USGS period of re-
cord (1993-1997). The USGS steady-state model assumes that about 31 cfs is
pumped from wells. If new water rights indicate additional pumping since then, a
more realistic value for current conditions is about 75 cfs-more than twice the
rate considered by the model.
Table 8-2 indicates that the sum of the Q-max withdrawals was about 5.1 cfs
(1,203 MGY) for all water rights applications for the 5-year period from 2000 to
2004.In contrast, the corresponding sum was 117.3 cfs (27,200 MGY) for the 3-
year period from 2005 through November 2007. This difference indicates that
groundwater pumping will increase dramatically if all these water right permits
are granted for each application.
MarkYjager }IQRTITWEST
I.and&ffaEr, rx*
ASS()CIAIES 44 A Clnrnlring iI Fd6ttolrfl]
CASE STUDY: TIIoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
New permits and applications for surface water rights permits are few and for
small quantities. One permit (for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) is for 2.64 cfs
It seems to be associated with 36 other surface water permits that have priority
dates of 1974 and l9l7 .
MarkYingal }ISETHC'8FTlad&W*tanc
A$SOCIAIES 45 A &n6lllt6 !il Hdrqioolosl
CASE STUDYT THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
9.0 Deepened Wells
In general, water wells are deepened when they no longer provide adequate sup-
plies. If the demand has not changed since the well was installed, a decline in
production capacity will result in inadequate supplies. Although such declines
may be due to lower well efficiencies, they are most commonly caused by declin-
ing water levels. It is reasonable to assume that wells are deepened when the
pumping water level reaches the pump intake and yields decrease. As water levels
decline, the well intercepts less of the aquifer, and therefore produces less water.
As part of this investigation, we examined wells that were deepened over a spe-
cific period, within a specific area, around the Thornburgh site, to learn more
about possible groundwater level declines.
9.1 Data Source & Method
OWRD maintains an online database of water well logs filed by drillersrs. The da-
tabase identifies wells that have been deepened. We downloaded this database for
our analysis.
The database includes information about the type of construction conducted for
each well and identifres wells that have been deepened. This database was queried
based on township, range, and section. The l98-square-mile search area is shown
on the Figure 9-1.
9.2 Discussion
Since 1980, 210 (of about 3,400) wells have been deepened in the study areatn.
Table 9-L summarizes the number of deepened well logs for each 5-year interval
since 1980. Well deepening has accelerated since 1980, and82 wells have been
deepened since 2000. This trend is tikely to continue in pace with increased
groundwater pumping in the area. The increasing rate of well deepening indicates
that groundwater levels are declining, likely because of increased pumping by ma-
jor groundwater users, such as Eagle Crest Resort and the City of Redmond, and,
to some degree, by reduced annual precipitation.
1 8 http : // www.wrd. s tate. or.us
Ie The actual number of wells in the study area is somewhat lower because multiple logs have beenfiledfor some.
Mark Yingq ilqRTHWF$t{and&ffakr, rxc.-,*r*iffitfiffiASSOCIATES46&
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATION
The Cline Buttes and Thornburgh resorts are located near the center of Township
15 South, Range l2East. Fifteen wells have been deepened within this area (Ap-
pendix B). Of these, 13 wells were deepened between 2001 and2007. These
wells are located near the Eagle Crest Resort (Figure 5-2). Well logs for four of
the deepened wells, 56980, 56063,56877 and 55438, could be matched up with
the original well logs to determine the amount of decline in static water level over
time. The declines in water levels for these wells are, respectively,42 feetbe-
tween 1995 and 2005,10 feet between 1982 and 2004,21 feetbetween 1976 and
2005, and 3 feet 1985 and 2003. It is likely that the pumping of the Eagle Crest
Resort wells has caused a decline in the water table.
ASS0CtAtES 47 l}.MarkYinggl iroRTt{wf,!Tl"ild&1V+& ne
Cdffrkire in Ht'.llrBEsia8t
CASE STUDYI THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
10.0 Fish Habitat in the UDB
10.1 Data Sources
We examined critical fish habitat using data available online from the U.S Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFW) in shape file format20. The data included locations
(streams and lakes) of critical bull trout habitat. We also downloaded data identi-
$ring the endpoint of the extent of critical bull trout habitatzt.
10.2 Discussion
10,2.1 Bull Trout Critical Habitat
Bull trout is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). In October 2004, USFW designated critical habitat for bull trout in the
Deschutes River basin (USFW, 2005). Bull trout have more specific habitat re-
quirements than other salmonids; very cold water is the first criteria listed. Bull
trout can occupy streams with temperatures ranging from 0o to 22"C, but they are
found most frequently in temperatures ranging from 2o to 15oC. There are three
listed areas of critical bull trout habitat on the Deschutes River between Big Falls
(RM 132) and the mouth of whychus creek (RM 123; Figure 10-1). Based on
our modeling, this reach would be impacted by a reduction in cold groundwater
discharges to the Deschutes River due to the pumping of the Thornburgh resort
wells. The springs discharging into the river in this reach provide the sole source
of cold water for the listed habitat. Any reduction in the flow from these springs
will lead to temperature increases in the river. The TIR (Figure 6-26) shows that
the river temperature in the area of the critical habitat is 12" to l4oC, while just
upstream the temperature is 24" to 26"C. A botanical and springs survey of the
middle Deschutes River conducted in 2005 for the BLM recorded an average
spring water temperature in the critical habitat area of about 10.6oC (WPN, 2006)
20 http : //criticalhab itat.fws. gov
2t http://www.fws.gov/paciJic/bulltrout; the publication date for this data is September 26, 2005
48 IL crnr!lrir( h Hidratrslattt
MarkYinggl
ASS0CIAIIS
XQRTHq'E5T
land & Ufsier] iilc-
CASE STUDY: THORNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
10.2.2 Native Redband Trout
ODFW's Upper Deschutes River Bqsin Fish Management Plan identifies a core
redband trout population located mostly within two reaches that would be im-
pacted by the pumping of the Thornburgh destination resort wells (Fies et al.,
1996; Figure 10-1). These reaches are the Odin Falls to Whychus Creek reach on
the Deschutes River and the Alder Springs to Deschutes River reach on Whychus
Creek. The native redband trout is an Oregon-listed sensitive species. The cold
water springs that discharge to the Deschutes River and the lower end of Why-
chus Creek are essential to maintaining the excellent habitat for the native red-
band trout in this core population area.
Our modeling shows that pumping the Thornburgh wells will reduce cold
groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River from Bend to just south of Cline
Buttes. In this reach, native redband trout production is very limited because of
low summer flows and high water temperatures (Fies et al., 1996). Even small re-
ductions of cold groundwater inflows will likely have a negative impact on this
stressed redband population.
10.2.3 Steelhead & Salmon Reintroduction
A major effort is underway to reintroduce summer steelhead and Chinook salmon
to the UDB. This effort focuses on establishing self-sustaining populations in
Whychus Creek, where Chinook historically spawned (Fies et a1.,1996). The cold
water springs that discharge to this creek from Alder Springs down to the mouth
of the creek are very important to the success of the reintroduction progtam
(Wise, 2008). Modeling indicates that this reach will see reduced cold groundwa-
ter discharges as a result of pumping the Thomburgh wells. The TIR data, plotted
on Figure 6-26, shows that Whychus Creek water temperature from Alder
Springs to its mouth is 12o to 14oC, while just upstream of Alder Springs the tem-
perature is24" to26"C.
MarkYinggl
ASSOCIATES
il0&TllwDsr
Land & Watel} ,ile-
c*,rot,t'.-il'itffi49It
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATIoN
11.0 Mitigation
11.1 Current Alternatives
This section briefly describes the mitigation program currently used by OWRD to
minimize diminishing streamflows in the UDB and to enhance streamflow on the
middle Deschutes River. The program is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute
537.746 and implemented through Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Di-
visions 505 and 521.
The mitigation program began in2002. Mitigation, which is required for all new
groundwater permits in the UDB, may be accomplished via a mitigation project or
mitigation credits, also referred to as "mitigation water." Mitigation water can be
acquired by various methods:
) Instream leases) Time-limited instream transfers
) Permanent instream transfers
) Allocation of conserved water) Aquifer recharge) Releases of stored water
For example, an instream transfer occurs when a water diversion at a specific
point on the river is terminated to allow a diversion or impact to the stream at a
different location. For each new groundwater permit, OWRD determines the zone
of impact. Mitigation credits associated with that zone may then be used for miti-
gation. The zones of impact are shown on Figure 11-1.
The ODFW, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department (OSPRD), ODEQ,
and BLM all have an obligation to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness
of mitigation for new groundwater permits. These agencies are charged with pro-
tecting resources that will be impacted by future grogndwater withdrawals that are
not properly mitigated. This section addresses elements of the mitigation pro-
grams for which we have identified concerns.
MarkYinggl !{oBTltq/fsT
Land&\sak+ wc.
ASSOCIATES 5CI &,,arnhlrid4 [t H!drogcolagt
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATIoN
11.2 Concerns
11.2.1 Zone of lmpact
The OWRD determined for Thornburgh that the zone of impact is the general
river zone (Figure 11-1)-that is, the entire Deschutes River basin above the Ma-
dras gauge. This means that it could be acceptable to use mitigation water from a
stream diversion or impact that currently occurs downstream of the stream
reaches shown to be impacted from proposed Thornburgh pumping. Under this
condition, the impact would not be mitigated; instead, more water would simply
flow downgradient of the point of impact from the mitigation water. Temperature
at the reaches impacted by Thornburgh pumping would increase due to pumping.
This impact would not be mitigated under the conditions described above.
Our simulation of pumping from the Thornburgh wells indicates that decreased
groundwater discharges, and therefore decreased streamflow, to the middle
Deschutes River and lower Whychus Creek. These impacts must be mitigated us-
ing credits or projects that target the middle Deschutes River Zone andthe Why-
chus Creek zone-specifically, the reaches indicated by our modeling efforts.
11.2.2 Canal Lining or Piping / "Conserved" Water
Lining existing canals or conveying water via pipes instead of canals would elimi-
nate losses due to leakage. The mitigation rule allows this so-called "conserved"
water to be used to mitigate new groundwater pumping. However, water leaked
from canals eventually discharges to streams downgradient and comprises an im-
portant part of the local hydrogeologic system. This mitigation scheme would in-
crease streamflow at the canal diversion; however, downstream groundwater dis-
charge into the stream is diminished. In addition, groundwater discharge to
streams would be further diminished by the newly permitted groundwater pump-
ing.
Groundwater mitigation based on this so-called o'conserved" water would have a
long-term, cumulative impact on water quality-specifi cally temperature-
because it reduces cold groundwater discharge into streams.
ASSOCIAIES 51 ILMarkYinser }JORT'ftr'ESTknat$teorns
Crorakh{ io Hld&BroleEt
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
11.3 OWRD Evaluation
OWRD evaluated the first 5 years of the mitigation program (OWRD,2008). In
general, the report concludes that the mitigation program is successful based pri-
marily on two factors: increased streamflow (which is documented in the
Deschutes River at Bend), and the availability of plenty of mitigation water "in
the bank."
The OWRD report shows a graph of streamflow at Bend from 4ll/2007 through
913012007 and compares it to monthly average for the period of record at this
stream gauge. The graph shows that streamflow was about 100 cfs during low-
flow conditions in 2007 andthat monthly mean streamflow for the period of re-
cord during these months was less, ranging from about 50 to 60 cfs. The graph il-
lustrates that, compared to earlier conditions, the mitigation program has in-
creased streamflow at Bend. However, it is important to note that this graph only
monitors the effectiveness of mitigation credits that affect reaches upstream from
Bend. The OWRD report indicates that no other gauges are available for evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of mitigation in other parts of the basin. Furthermore, there
is no data addressing the effect of mitigation on stream temperature-a very im-
portant parameter for maintaining a healthy stream.
The Deschutes Water Alliance comprises representatives from major stakeholders
in the UDB, including cities, irrigation districts, the Deschutes River Conser-
vancy, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. The working mission for
this group with diverse needs includes the objective of moving streamflow
"toward a more natural hydrograph while securing and maintaining improved
instreamflows and water quality to support fish and wildlife. "
A more natural hydrograph is one that represents conditions before so much water
was diverted from streams in the UDB. The Deschutes River has a Wild and Sce-
nic designation; as such, returning to a more natural condition is appropriate. This
mission statement reminds us that the success of the mitigation program should be
measured by how well streamflow is returning to the natural condition to enhance
its wild nature-not just by documenting that flows exceed the lowest, or most
impacted, condition ever recorded. The OWRD evaluation fails to consider this
mission.
If the Thornburgh Resort is developed and mitigation occurs in the general zone,
pumping from the six new wells would likely still impact the river in the vicinity
indicated by the model (Section TFeven if mitigation is allowed anywhere
above Madras gauge. Yet, based on the OWRD's method of evaluation, the miti-
gation program would still be considered successful as long as flows at Bend are
ASSOCIATES 52 ^c?^
MarkYingql .{gRTtiwIsr
Land&Waier. il+
con,.ninsliiffi!ffi
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
higher than historic flows. As such, the method used to evaluate the success of the
mitigation progrcm needs to be improved.
MarkYinger
ASS(}CIAIES 53 4ffiffi
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
12.0 Analysis of Projected lmpacts
In Section 6 we analyzed data collected over the last 10 years to identify trends
that will affect future water and ecological resources in the UDB. In section 7 we
conducted modeling to evaluate the effect of pumping Thornburgh wells on the
hydrogeologic system. In Sections 8, 9, and 10 we analyzed water rights activity
since 1998, deepened wells in the Thomburgh vicinity, and fish habitat, respec-
tively. This section summarizes the results of these analyses with respect to im-
pact to water resources and the current mitigation program (Section 1l) and offers
a roadmap for evaluating the impacts of future development.
12.1 lmpacts Related to Thornburgh Case
12.1.1 Modeling Results
Our model simulations show that pumping from the new Thornburgh wells will
reduce streamflows primarily in two segments of the middle Deschutes River and
lower Whychus Creek (Table 7-1, Figures 7-1 and 7-2).The two reaches on the
Deschutes River are from Bend to just south of Cline Buttes (RM 149) and from
Odin Falls to the mouth of Whychus Creek. On Whychus Creek, streamflows are
reduced from approximately Alder Springs downstream to the Deschutes River.
These streamflow reductions are related to groundwater level declines. Because a
significant portion of streamflow originates from groundwater seepage-
especially during the low-flow season-these declines mean less groundwater is
available to feed the stream. Reaches of the Deschutes River near the proposed
Thornburgh development are especially vulnerable to water level declines be-
cause baseflows are relatively low. Water level decline could also affect Whychus
Creek, which has base flows of about 7 to 15 cfs, and Tumalo Creek, which has
baseflows of 10-20 cfs.
All of these reaches are important to fish resources near the proposed develop-
ment.
12.1.2 Related Impacts
The predicted groundwater level declines-and the resulting reductions in stream-
flow-also have profound impacts on stream temperatures, which in turn can im-
pair fish habitat. The mildly gaining reaches are especially vulnerable to water
NlarkYinggl
ASSOCIAIES
t{oRTil{rIsT
laryd & W*ter' rNc
54 rb Cddrrlri({. ir tl !{rltaol(8}
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
level declines, which can lead to higher water temperatures because less cool
groundwater is available to enter the stream.
Groundwater level declines also impact existing wells and water rights. As water
levels decline, a well's production may also decline. Many owners in the UDB
have already resorted to deepening their wells to obtain the supplies they need.
12.2 Climate Change
If future precipitation is less than historic precipitation, this will eventually mani-
fest in reduced streamflow. If impact to streamflow from gtoundwater pumping is
expressed as a percent of streamflow, then relative impact from pumping would
be greater under conditions of reduced precipitation and reduced streamflow.
12.3 Habitat Resources
Pumping from the six proposed Thornburgh wells will cause water level declines
and associated reductions in cold spring discharges. It is reasonable to assume that
if mitigation for the Thornburgh wells does not occur at the specific reaches af-
fected by pumping, cold water discharge into the stream will be less at those
reaches, causing water temperatures to increase on both the Deschutes River and
Whychus Creek. lncreased stream temperature negatively impacts not only criti-
cal habitat for bull trout, a federally listed species, but also a core redband trout
population. In addition, this warming trend will impede the success of the reintro-
duction of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead.
12.4 Considerations for Future Developments
In a region that is growing as rapidly as the UDB, it is imperative to consider im-
pacts in the context of trends in water usage. Although the impacts on streamflow
due to pumping the Thornburgh wells alone will never exceed 3.25 cfs (the Q-
average), the effect of declining groundwater levels is cumulative. If streamflows
decrease, impacts to the Deschutes River from the proposed Thornburgh devel-
opment would become more significant because they would represent a larger
percentage of streamflow.
ASSOCIATES &Mark YingE !,{OBTH{'EST
land & t#'aier rvc
CddrrlLli* ir H!d(NAolnBt
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH II.ESoRT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATIoN
Furthermore, groundwater development will undoubtedly continue in the UDB,
and water level declines will be additive. It is reasonable to assume that pumping
the six wells at the Thornburgh destination resort will contribute to the rate of
groundwater level decline, perhaps requiring other wells in the area to be deep-
ened. Similarly, while reduction in stream temperature from reduced cool
groundwater inflow due to Thornburgh pumping may be relatively small, the cu-
mulative effect from other groundwater developments in the vicinity will be sig-
nificant.
Section 13, "Recommendations," lists specific actions that planners can take to
ensure the long-term health of ecosystems along the Deschutes River.
MarkYinger t{oETri[rE$t'land&tVakr, ryc
ASSOCIAIES 56 &.Crfi zlrhd; i6 }{!drail!olrst
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESORT
WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION
13.0 Recommendations
Agencies and planners should...
) ...consider the cumulative impact of individual proposed groundwater devel-
opments rather than considering each one individually.
) ...require the use of the best available scientific method to evaluate the im-
pacts of groundwater development on water resources.
) ... acknowledge the effects of lining and piping canals on gtoundwater levels
and related groundwater discharges to streams. The "conserved" water may
enhance flows at the diversion, but any benefits are subtracted downstream
because groundwater discharges to streams are diminished.
) ...acknowledge that when pumping is not mitigated at the place of impact,
cold groundwater discharges to streams are reduced, resulting in higher water
temperatures. A greater emphasis on evaluating and monitoring water quality
is needed.
) ...target mitigation for Thornburgh pumping to the middle Deschutes River
and Whychus Creek zones, which will be impacted the most.
) ...monitor stream temperafure and use the data to measure the effectiveness of
mitigation.
) ...address the Endangered Species Act and other laws protecting fish and fish
habitat when considering groundwater withdrawals.
) ...use the natural hydrograph for Deschutes River as a means by which to
evaluate the success of water resource management in the UDB, rather than a
comparison to the historic low flow.
The critical habitat listing prohibits federal actions that would adversely modify
critical habitat ODFW, ODEQ, OSPRD, and the BLM should develop progmms
specifically to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation for new
groundwater development.
Marhl0lgqx
ASSOCIAIES
ilSBTI'WEST
knd&WaEr, we.
5?rL cvrrrlll(ei ltr H{Jraiaol.0t
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER REsoURcEs IMPACT EVALUATIoN
14.0 References
Bestland, E.A. and Retallack, G.J.,1964, Geology and paleoenvironments of the Clamo unit John Day
Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon, U.S. National Parks Service.
Caldwell, R.R., and Truini, Margot, 1997, Groundwater and water-chemistry data for the upper Deschutes
Basin, Oregon. U.S. Departrnent of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-197,77
pages.
Enlows, H.E., and Parker, D.J.,1972, Geochronology of the Clarno Igneous Activity in the Mitchell
Quadrangle, Wheeler County, Oregon, State of Oregon, Oregon State University, Department of Ge-
ology, pp104-1 10.
Fies, T, Fortune, J., Lewis, B., Manion, M., Marx, S., and Schrader, T., L996, Upper Deschutes River
Subbasin Fish Management Plan, Oregon Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.40-73.
Gannett, M.W., Lite Jr., K.E., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A.,2001, Groundwater Hydrology of the Up-
per Deschutes Basin, Oregon,: US Geological Survey Oregon Water-Resources Investigations Report
02-4162,77p.
Gannett, M.W., Manga, Michael, and Lite, K.8., Jr., 2003, Groundwater hydrology of the upper
Deschutes basin and its influence on streamflow: in O'Connor, J.E., and Grant, G.E. eds., A Peculiar
River - Geology, geomorphology, and hydrology of the Deschutes River, Oregon: American Geo-
physical Union Water Science and Application 7, p. 3I-49.
Gannett, M.W., and Lite Jr., K.E,2002, Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System
in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Oregon Water Resources Investiga-
tions Report 024015, 44p.
Gannett, M.W., and Lite Jr., K.8,2004, Simulation of Regional Groundwater Flow in the Upper
Deschutes Basin, Oregon, Oregon Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4195,84p.
Gannett, Marshall, 2006, Personal communication by email to Jim Mathieu, Northwest Land & Water,
Inc. from Marshall Gannett, U.S.Geological Survey, June 5, 2006. Electronic transmittal posted on
USGS website per this email.
Hill,8.E., and Taylor, E.M., 1990, Oregon Central High Cascade pyroclastic units in the vicinity of
Bend, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 52, no. 6, November 1990, ppI25-I25-126.
Hooper, P.R., Steele, W.K., Conrey, R.M., Smith, G.A., Anderson, J.L., Bailey, D.G., Beeson, M.H., To-
lan, T.L., and Urbanczyk, K.M., 1993, The Prineville basalt, north-central Oregon, Oregon Geology,
v. 55, no. l, January 1993,pp3-12.
Lite, K.E. Jr., and Gannett, M.W., 2002, Geologic framework of the regional groundwater flow system in
the upper Deschutes Basin Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
02 -40 1 5, 44 p. lhttp : I I or.water.usgs. gov/pubs/W2R02-40 1 54
McClaughry, J.D., and Fems, M.L.,2007, Field trip guide to the geology of the Lower Crooked River
Basin, Redmond and Prineville Areas, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 67 , no 1, Fall 2006, ppl5-23.
McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A modular three-dimensional finte-difference groundwater
flow model: U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 6, Chap.
Al, 586 p.
MarkYinger t{oRTfiqrEsT
land & ffater, rxe
ASSOCIAIES 58 ^&Cr(irhi(4 i* HIJ!oiaola0l
CASE STUDY: THoRNBURGH RESoRT
WATER RESoURCES IMPACT EVALUATI0N
McSwain, Michelle, 2008, Personal communication by e-mail from Michelle McSwain, Bureau of Land
Management Michelle_McSwain@or.blm.gov, to Mark Yinger, Mark Yinger Associates, January 16,
2008,8:15 A.M.
Newton, David, 2005, Hydrology Report-Water supply development feasibility: Proposed Thornburgh
resort, Deschutes County, Oregon, Newton Consultants, fnc., entered in the Deschutes County plan-
ning record for the Thomburgh destination resort.
Noblett, J.8., 1981, Subduction-related origin of the volcanic rocks of the Eeocene Clarno Formation near
Cherry Creek, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v.43, no. 7, July 1981, pp91-98.
OWRD, 2008, Deschutes ground water mitigation program, 5-year progmm evaluation report, Oregon
Water Resources Dept., draft January 18, 2008.
Peck, D.L., 1964, Geologic reconnaissance of the Antelope-Ashwood area, north-central Oregon, U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1161-D, p Dl-D-26.
Sherrod, D.R., Gannett, M.W., and Lite Jr., K.E, 2002,Hydrogeology of the Upper Deschutes Basin,
Central Oregon: A Young Basin Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic Arc, Oregon DOGAMI Special
Paper 36, I44p.
Sherrod, D.R., Taylor, E.M., Ferns, M.L., Scott, W.E., Conrey, R.M., and Smith, G.A.,2004, Geologic
Map of the Bend 30- x 60-Minute Quadrangle, Central Oregon, US Geological Survey Geologic In-
vestigations Series I-2683, 48p.
Smith, G.A., 1991, A field guide to depositional processes and facies geometry of Neogene continental
volcaniclastic rocks, Deschutes basin, central Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 53, no. l, January 1991,
pp.3-19.
Streck, J.M. and Grunder, A.L.,2007, Phenocryst-poor rhyolites of bimodal, thoeliitic provinces: the Rat-
tlesnake Tuff and implications for mush extraction models, Bulletin of Volcanology.
Taylor, G.H., 1993, Normal annual precipitation, State of Oregon,: Corvallis, Oregon State University,
Oregon Climate Service, map.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife,2005,50 CFR Part 17, Endanger and threatened wildlife plants; designation of
critical habitat for bull trout; final rule, Federal Register, v. 70, no. 185.
Watershed Sciences, 2002, Aerial Surveys I the Deschutes River Basin, Thermal Infrared and Color
Videography, February 11,2002. Prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality by Wa-
tershed Sciences.
Wise, Ted, 2008, personal communications, ODFW.
WPN, 2006, Middle Deschutes wild and scenic river botanical inventory: Odin Falls to Culver gauge,
prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District Office.
Mark Yingq IIORTHqIESTland&WaBrrc
"o".'i,ifrilfr,liffiASSOCIAIES59^db,,.
Table 6-1.Precipitation Summary Statistics, Water Years {99{ Through 2OO7
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
" period of study of the USGS groundwater model simulation
NORTHWEST
Iand & Water, rnc.
Gase Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
1991 7.35 7.79 8.32 5.49 18.36
1992 9,37 9.26 10.32 6.47 17.5
10.37 14_23 17.82 13.82 12.91 28.121 993
1 994 4.98 6.6 6.55 5.36 5.73 10.14
1 995 10.63 9.52 16.64 13.06 9.66 23.3
1 996 11.46 10.78 15.27 12.4 2.28 29.28
1997 16.42 12.03 19.32 13.54 4.73 24.41
13.06 9.23 15.66 11.86 11.34 26.321 998
10.37 9.2 8.891 999 15.7 2.89 22.94
2000 8.01 2.87 10.41 8.15 6.84 14.83
2001 6.81 4.08 7.38 3.82 1.03 13.19
2002 8.04 1.24 6.43 3.47 5.93 "17.07
2003 7.92 2.09 8.95 2.85 7.96 14-6
9.69 1.06 14.13 8.93 9.88 19.162004
8.31 9.78 5.46 10.46 14.5820059.83
13.21 4.22 26.05200616.85 7.54 1 1.33
2007 9.66 5.11 7.82 5.79 5.56 16.15
avs t'993-1'995*8.66 ,t0-12 13.67 :to.75 9.43 20.52
avs 3001-2CI07 s.83 424 9.67 4.93 7:45 7736
.dfierense -1.17 5.gl 4.00 5.81 t.g8 3.26
.l'3Yo t$o/o 29Vo 64/1h 2loIo t6%
differeneeas % of
*ISCS pedqd
Consulting in Hydrogeology dlprojects\Thomburgh\Precipitiation\ppt Graph and stats
Table 6-2. Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, ln Million Gallons, For SelectedPublic Supply Wells 1997-2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, OregonYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totalt99719981999200020012002200320042005200648.70110.45t85.47171.42r45.4489.81151.90t29.25r09.6476.08NORTHWESTland&.WaM, Ixc.45.3789.89138.73t7r.36136.4877.05142.21t26.1375.4266.5648.34130.99123.66201.36116.5697.86148.65l18.63136.5678.2r74.98177.M201.34280.'t5177.16285.85203.t6r27.531 10.12113.76t50.47t93.39330.61367.84457.69M3.74411.10138.60297.08299.47173.3 I293.80450.20462.59533.45606.04664.23r41.37429.21295.07277.38477.47564.s1488. l6582.32676.r0840.011s6.00683.17478.75t56.22482.26432.68505.27708.38637.15722.86157.35776.t0s06.94134.55351.49376.28381.49500.54467.535t2.59174.28503.7332t.t688.45172.48tgt.76238.t4285.21227.99205.27138.3 8216.46147.3052.2'lr71.1018 r.71t't2.95177.t6l 1 1.88196.41117.8381.1980.7248.31108.39209.00l 68.56155.4497.97159.95116.181r4.4681.911298275933863610397638194358t64235332546Note: Years 2004 and 2006 have small totals due to so much missing datalf 2003 data were used in place of the missing 2OQ4 data,2004 Total would be 4796lf 2005 data were used in place of the missing 2006 data, 2006 Total would be 3891Page 1 of ICase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact Evraluation^NCoqs{ltiog in !l}dro$rologyd lThornburgh\WabrU se\Wateruse.mdb:Publ icSummaryMonlhlyAnnual. rpi
Table 6-3. Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, ln Million Gallons, ForSelected Private Supply Wells 1997-2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, OregonYearJan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec199719981999200020012002200320042005200617.9663.6363.4963.6535.7830.47t75.9293.4725.r084.5415.6952.4349.6263.2554.9523.93162.4789.3620.2863.3714.6269.9151.9464.2647.5123.75r54.02215.8820.7897.2416.9560.8756.6080.8459.503 1.00149.85202.4936.0477.92t9.9261.8173.26104.0065.2745.59172.32332.0654.00r02.6930.5092.061t7.9114't.87I r8.8881.',l4282.t8367.7462.t8r 81.66183.71230.t7264.464.35305.8651.96338.6049.802r2.14203.0133'.7.tl233.66t07.52550.48351.22r42.51376;1562.64275.852s3.09336.95237.35126.87686.47240.121 56.1 I425.634't.51208.69212.55283.47238.r9108.74604.7'720t.60121.62468. l0Total369142914942009l6t47754093264481426583 1.00151.71165.93220.84200.8662.76382.37128.0371.67374.04NORTHWESTland & Water, rNc.Corrsultrnx ia 1lydrogcologyPage I of iCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvraludionANdlThornburgh\WaterUse\WaterUse.mdb:PrivateSummary{vlonthlyAnnual.rpt
Table 6-4, Summary of Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, For Select Public Supply WellsnUpper Deschutes Basin, OregonPublic Water Supply Well Name {997 {998 {999 2OOO 2OO1 2OO2 2OO3 2OO4 2OO5 2006City Bend Rock BluffNo. 2City of Bend Airport WellCity of Bend Bear Ck Well 1City of Bend Outback Well ICity of Bend Outback Well 2City of Bend Outback Well 3City of Bend Pilot Butte 1 WellCity of Bend Pilot Butte 2 WellCity of Bend Pilot Butte 3 WellCity of Bend River ICity of Bend River 2City of Bend Rock BluffNo. 3City of Bend Rock BluffNo.lCity of Bend Westwood WellCityof Redmond Well ICity of Redmond Golf Course WellCity of Redmond Sewage Effluent Res..City of Redmond Sewage WW TreatmentCity of Redmond Well 2City of Redmond Well 3 Ind ComplexCity of Redmond Well 4 FK Horned ButteCity of Redmond Well 5111.5 111.11 80.62186.75164-08198.67474.44266.9772.t883.25148.8t24.2650.64156.8466.41136.632.72t49.41435.220186.79s04.04350.31052.9764.5t74.63131 .9360.74t57.8480.1 5134.856.85168.08441.8444t.84132.52479.4328t.94224.41277.3833.0437.46196.51156.02222.735.162.25101.41s09.02509.0280.14 r241.61223.046672t6.8176.11.5t02.16t34.73186.252t1.49189.7169.03537.6t4086. l 06t29.101.1 834302.r523.816r.22560.24284.05289.47n9.233.86260.55t69.7155.74146.960208.91236.3r328.14r49.76219.9s111.14108.551l1.932.735.91120.15r40.3139.22248.350t68.26187.46327.2t56.',7515.1313.36247.7874.211t5.67232.51105.36142.56153.'16152.7363.2753.23148.6742.4312t.780183.96396.6953'7.46430.1 9274.52t54.36t02.76372.2752t94.79s500.454483.093463.56116.8525'7.32276.75683.3742.84t23.84133.04299.45637.4162.38405.1 3t94.t6696.991.5t23658.69658.69NORTHWSSTIaud&\Uater, rNc.Corsulring in Hlilro&crlogyPage I of2Case Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact Evaluation^&,d:\Thornburgh\WaterUse\WaterUse.mdb:Public Data Annual Crosstab Each Well.rpt
Table 6-4. Summary of Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, For Select Public Supply Wells'Upper Deschutes Basinn OregonPublic YVater Supply Well Name1997 1998 {999 2000 20lD1 20,02 2003 200,4 2005 2006City of Sisters City Well Nol ICity of Sisters H.S. Well No 2Terrebonne Water Dist. Well 1Terrebonne Water Dist. Well 3Terrebonne Water Dist.Well 210.322164.7305.986r01.6922.57'752.42393.75824.65740.1 18r23.2r2t.076'74.595100.6123.8224. 151 I24.'718148.4350.7432.072t4.2078.4843131.0187.3319.763338.6920t44.65126.8016.97234.2110140.0591.04533.52637.75201t4.212117.63026.597041.66710NORTHWESTIand*Yqry,lryq,Co!6ultrs* iD llydro8.oloSy19.14 t9.543 19.543 23.141Page2 ofZCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact Ewluation^Nd:\Thomburgh\Wateruse\Wateruse.mdb:Public Data Annual Crosstab Each Well.rpi
Table 6-5. Summary of Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, For Select Private Supply Wells'Upper Deschutes Basin, OregonPrivate Water Supply Well{997 {998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Agate-Agate Water CompanyAvion-Avion Water Comp anyChapparral-Avion Water CompanyChocktaw--Agate Water CompanyCinder Butte-Avion Water CompanyConestoga-Avion Water CompanyCrane Water Wonderlanddrw Tuscarora - Avion Water Companykrdian Summer-Agate Water CompanyMerganser Water WonderlandNull La Casa Mia AssociationNull--Avion Water CompanyOdin Falls - Avion Water CompanyRed Cloud- Avion Water CompanyRiver Bluffs-Agate Water CompanySchool Well Laidlaw Water DistrictSeeversWater WonderlandShoshone-Agate Water CompanyTetherow Crossing- Avion Water CompanyWell 1 Home Roats Water System Inc.Well l0 Pinebrook Roats Water SystemWell 2 Cline Butte Utility Co30.27 28.10 34.675.529.9935.4629.747.311321.5764.696.995.450.001.387.3r2t.105.270.7614.517.0012.9640.3332.902.907.311280.0166.t45.08s.981.353.274.3221.910.0017.920.3312.9535.104.127.76420.t91382.1433.21133.047.811443.2071.786. l343.t33.18r.676.0426.450.0021.454.2214.7329.231598.1732.737.7587.306.050.006.5326.2324.281916.9830.1 49.3245.984.9030.600.9410.630.002t.467.081068.8739.854.581.212.5015.307.081088.2847.164.715.491.253.0220.71I .5514.6512.4247.082.92 30.0046.624.237 t.786.045.341.414.9424.890.006.8723.r40.3714.1,448.931.351.281.671.9313.3813.959.0339.750.08r.39t4.2610.3047.610.0014.0824.13NORTHWESTt*d*t*Y-ltqJXCoa!ultinE i! Hydrogcolugl3t.5413.r 80.000.0083.36106.46 85.77Page 1 of2Case Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationJNdlThornburghWaterUse\Wateruse.mdb:Private Data Annual Crosstab Each Well.rpt
Table 6-5. Summary of Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, For Select Private Supply Wells'Upper Deschutes Basinr OregonPrivate Water Supply Well1997 {998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20/0,4 2005 2006Well 2 Home Roats Water SystemWell 3 Cline Butte UtilitycoWell 3 Pinebrook Roats Water SystemWell 4 Pinebrook Roats Water SystemWell 5 Woodside Roats Water SystemWell 6 Cline Butte UtilityCoWell 6 Woodside Roats Water SystemWell 7 Cline Butte UtilityCoWell 7 Woodside Roats Water SystemWell 8 Cline Butte UtilityCoWell 8 Woodside Roats Water SystemWell 9 Cline Butte Utility CoWell 9 Pinebrook Roats Water SystemWild R Avion Water CoWild R - Avion Water Company15.31 16.63 17.01 19.5910.6977.0845.7311.8167.6635.9711.9470.4940.4114.0194.0235.34100.230.00t7.0967.8461.901'7.t4100.6349.30109.',l668.029.9244.8r69.4914.92115.8242.48103.847.8075.9851.8422.532.8861.4515.65r14.8442.25113.170.0021.1728.3678.5852.33I 36.8 I35.262.6263.7914.081r2.7536.97105.210.00t9.7028.9864.574t.59t79.1725.340.0082.540.000.000.00113.310.0019.940.0069.150.00196.510.0014.672.52115.8425.5'70.0019.26 22.03 19.2128.72 29.00 41.s10.324.54NORTHWESTland &\[ater, rnc.co!*ultinB is !lydro$eologi4.67 5.566.737.426.77 8.097.428.63Page2 of2Case Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationJNd;\Thornburgh\WaterUse\WaterUse.mdb:Private Data Annual Crosstab Each Well.rpt
Table 7-1. Summary of Diminished Streamflow, Model Results for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2Notes:1) Total pumping is 3.25 cfs for both ScenariosNORTHWESTtanaap3SlggConsulting in Hydrogeologyd :\projects\Thornbu rgh\...N LWmodel FilesForl nPut-.\Output\summary of Streamflow Reduction By Reach-JTM.xlsCase Study: ThornburghResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationDiminished Streamf, ow, 6fsas psfcent ofto{al oumrins9%55064%99.7%$eenario 20.301.782.083.24as percent oftotal pumoinq21%51o/o72Yo95.1YoScenario I0.681.652.333.09ReaelrBend to River Mile 149Odin Falls to Whychus Creek and Lower Whychus GreeCombined for two reachesTotal diminished streamflow for stream system
Table 8-{.
Summary of Ground Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use
Per Year Since lllllgga' Within USGS Study Area,
Upper Deschutes Basinr Oregon
Year Of
Right Date
ilumber of
Perrnits
Sum ol Maximum
Granted Use, efs
Total: 44.13
d:\Thornburgh\WaterRights\DeschulesWaterRights.mdb:rptsumrnary of Permits By Year.rpt
1998 I4 10.70
t999 10 1.91
2000 4 t.43
2001 J 5.37
2002 7 9.59
2003 J 11.78
2004 t6 0.78
2005 19 2.31
2006 2 0.28
^*N
Page I oflNORTHn/EST
Iand & V'ater, rrvc.
Cons[iting in llydiogtology
Case Study: ThornburghResort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
Table 8-2.
$ummary of Ground Water Rlghts Applications and Requested Water
Use Per Year Since 1l1l1gg8,
Within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, (lregon
dlThornburgh\WaterRights\D€schutosWatorRights,mdb:rptSummary of Applications By Year.rpt
)
1998 9 26.13
27.4719997
2000 2 0.07
3 0.5120ar
1.4024022
2003 J 0.72
8 2.4t2AA4
32.67200s7
2006 t2 13.31
2AA7 L9 71.3r
^k.cofi ruhing ir t{y&ogcdlosy
Page I of INORTIand&HVSSr
Valef,, wc.
Case Sfudy ThomburghResort
Water Resources lmpact Evalualion
Table 8-3.
Summary of Surface Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use
Per Year Slnce 1l,,1fi998, Within USGS Study Area,
Upper Deschutes Basinn Oregon
0.1422005
1 2.642rO07
NORTHVESTt^{9Y.ffi,^"
Cosrultlog in Sydroscobgy
PagB I ofl
Case Sfudy ThomburghResort
Water Resouroes lmpact Evalualion^&dl'Itomburgh${tabrRlghF\DoschutesWst€rRights.mdb:rptsurhmaryof SW Pemits ByYear.rpt
Table 84.
Summary of Surface lUater Rights Appllcations and Requested
Water Use Per Year $ince {/{/{998' Within USGS Study Area,
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
10 0.0720a7
NORTHWE$T
land&lVaier, ncc
contdtltr& i! rl drd*nologt
lagp I ofl Case $txly ThomburyhResod
Water Resources fnpaet Ewluation^&dilhomburgh\WaterRights\DesdrubgWabrRlghisfidb:mtsumnaryof SW Applicafon ByYearupt
Table 9- 1
Summary of Number of Wells Deepened since 1980 in the Vicinity of lhomburgh/Redmond
ByTownship and Range
Source:Resources Department Well Log
Towrnhip-
Range
2000-
present
t99s-1999 t990-1994 1985-1989 1980-1984 Totals
T14S-R12E 8 6 I J 4 22
T15S_R11E 8 9 l5 5 .J 40
T15S_R12E
(Eagle Crest)t7 2 0 4 4 27
23T15S-R13E
(Redmond)ll -t 0 7 44
T16S-R11E
(East half)9 6 7 0 4 26
t7 9T16S-R128 l3 4 8 51
Totals 82 47 35 t6 30 2t0
I
c---4
tB-
4*rnnfiiSFIngs
3\'rf i1) /I
;
.Jefl
PeltoalUffi/*-#{
,/\*"-,L
-\\*:/'
ason
\-,
/\
KTts" \v{. \"
,w
JJH
10
il.;N
l\,fl tr
ct
,.*
"+
:o /
r*.!.,*
+:,q
1l
KA$l
T 1q
,,,,I0",f 'li ' It-..ldlpeif 'S*'lnz
z
K
hreeJ
,/.ir
o
l2
";i5,1\
i!e,}+
fp(n!o
ck
9u,5.\in
rft'(
{t3
. toJl
rass
I)
-b :\
\il r^
.,*9''","u:/ ^si/o.,:-cqYo?-'tr},..''.,
{FSi!
(
,
Pffrr
{5
I 7 {.
.\s)r^ot
.^O:<i"'
.,7>l)
-,\\"
i.,i: ,.'
)\,?^
17
,##
I
I lii
X( Sacfielor
\-.,fi6t.'.\)al {
G
u
{a
J"t'r \c;
,.,'}.,,!.t*J
Sheridan*iloudaln .Le-.-+:
\(q t9
v)
O
at
I
t I .8ixcr
It5()?f a2 11
t./al
1A tt5 't6
-
Ne,{,-2<ko
t
?:
4
,F;r'-4;
t-.{
",'f
n
,Ji t' ,$./'
$t
berruf.o
,.l.nttf\
lol can0E,\st(]
t4,
n
o_
Pine
i4NnlEin
17
21
"?g;l!.AA
sls{
s_/t'-J{ta
,\t'i.r
*
Paulina
Peak ii -'\H:E
-.<?
',,6)
l.a
22
?:;i 3
a).ta:o \l 23
ti:,,,'l
\
I /2.4
iu\rs 'z 25
97 26O 5 10 KILOfuiEIERS
ORECiO N
1O MILES05
27
Figure 2-1
USGS Study Area
A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpacl Evaluation 5tr MarkYinpqt!:{ ASS0ClllES
lN
NORTHVESTIard&Water, rnc
1 121Joo'
o
a
g
d
=too
E
Io;I
Eo.!co
G
.9
doc
oo
=o
ot
o
lococF
o
oooL6i@
1o
Eog
dq
.9oo
o
E
oeIo
od.:ooE
ooo
iO.:N3NON
gE
3ro.o@
5o
sE
e:!c
SU?8P+:cOLol.
co
oc
og
EOoE
GOmd
44t30'
Approximate Location of
Proposed Thornburgh Res
44!oo'
43J30'
s-il c
Steatrtl)oal
i)
it
.i
Rock
Bultn
La t'ollette o
I
X
:-r
y.
X
Bis
t
_!
k:i:
!:
1lil
ltouitt)
t
ST
,:!
I
t:16
a- l
I
il
II
IT'tL
'-t
CI"iNIi
i
:!;
.-.t-.....
I
,THIhI)
--t
I
3
I
A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
ffi Thornburgh
NORTHWSST
Land &Water, tnc
,,, i MatkYinger
., I ASS0Clll:S
o
Figure 2-2
Location Map
Bureau of Land Management
State Lands
Private & Other Ownership
Proposed Thornburgh Well
Location
p
6E
I
E
cov
!)co.F
!Eo
-9,
d)3
ooo
o-
c(5
oal,o
c(',5
cocLtr)
gE
oNEno^-46
o:
E;6,oo'oOtL c)6U
EA(s.cIz'6.^(sEE
=+o;iatoco3-
<D6L>u)o:)oE>x6E3-
6?v:
FG
s=
3grEocoE
121.|]0'EIou.
g
IEocF
o
ooo
G
@o
1
tIot
c
.9
d.9t
;I
=Ig8
to:3N*;Y6
@o6:.9@
!()
36.taoJE:t'P*
.sco
bFcoco
h9dI8gda
6cL
EEOE
;E38qlx
'lY -a
=o86
o.9
8=otloe&nEc>;8rt
o-E5
E':
5E
E--'6,!
xo
=o
AYogo
g6
GENERALIZED GEO ?6 $7
:.1:m
a
J 6mv
I
rte
Location
P
I Thornburgh
1
*ter rmn
t {<llhrntar
Fq(.,
I
l7
a 2t
Parlina
PBk I 22
q
EXPTANATION
Gerlagic rnib
0uaternary sedimentery dEposits
VoL:anic deprsits of the 0uetErnary
Cascade Range and ltlewhenyVol
Volcanic and sedimentery deposits 0l the
latE Tertiary and 0uatErnary:
IeschutEs FDrmetion and eqP-
Equivalent straia
g7
ffiE Prinevrlle Bssalt
I EarlyTertiaryvolcanic deposits, primarily
oi the John Da'1 Formaton
-Geoloqic
faults0 5 i0 rr{LEs
-o
5 10 nnorarro,
* \?,
Figure 5-1
Generalized Geologic Units
of the Upper Deschutes
Basin NNORTHV/ESTtend-&_gs,l}g
A Case Study: Thomburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation '..,:. lv1or1YtoU,r:,1- tSS0aittES
o!
.qoa
c
od'6,
ooo(,
o
N
<
Ea
od
Iqa
oa
oL
-goF
o!a
o
co0Eo
Eeoo
-9qcdE6J
=o
Xo
c
m
odG
a
a
Sedimentary rocks & deposits
Basalt
Porphyritic basalt
Basalt of Cline Falls
Basaltic andesite
Ash-flow tuff
Debris-flow deposiis
Rhyolite of Cline Bultes
Cinder deposits
ar
2714
N
Mi
Deschutes County well log number & approxirnate
locaiion
Approximate static water level elevation based
on well log
Deepened well log number
Approximate location of proposed Thornburgh well
ooB
Eo
\\
t t,. -tat .-:Iaat
Alluvium
Eolian deposits
Talus & colluvium
Sand & gravel
Alluvuial sand
deposits
Apprcximate location
Eagle Crest Resort
A
6J
irio
E
ot
Deschutes Formation
Qal
Qe
Qt
Qs
Tds
Tdb
Tdt
Tddf
Tdrcb
Tdc
K
ffi
o
i ! Approximate locationr i Thomburoh Resortb.r-
Tdba
,I
I
tI
IIa5r.:-l
Fffi{
2280'Tdb,2763'
2608'
s@262e-
II
.!l
2714'.
25{8'--*-a
t
2749'.
Tdh6
Figure 5-2
Detailed Geologic Map
& Well Locations
Cline Buttes Area
A Case Study: Thomburgh Resofi
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
NORTHWESTbnd &lPahr, rNc.
',r,r, Uq\-liPgql, i tSS0CllTiS
N
Noq=LJetr:FNl-trtclt@Thornburgh Resort DCC 18.1 13.050, 2/2/2005.I!tItox.J!,ot-oo!,=oo{=o:ctc6\lI.F{'Water*Is;6a9tN<F=CDA-=o-=*q 6 =a o-.EE4. H fE 5 EE'i+ilidi€iEE€€R=E: a ?.o = it =-s E " 4 5 -' =4:@<49d-eqand Eaqle Crest Resort boundaties taken lromBh)ttrk3ltItrotbr,:l gf EII E€AI*I* 3EB!=l z gEFI= 3 E. -Hg P+qF edminte-'6gH;;o-6?jdi>tr co1t!P =.o(E'n frd =f o il o3-rr=UlE sH.r'-o o-ll, -il o-*r='B +-OGIo9.o(a6'Wzo{4I'A18otstg€>0J a)E'E7o6Ao*Yo,i.<o"O-{OJ-o5aEP'oietomJ{rLA!tdf,,ry-:i2+:5;9tNht
Pri
:\!!:'l
:
{
:rJr .,.'
l'.
11 17
i- ' --'t'
12 13 15 16
.
14
.. .l-
10
,i B
".t
t.f. :
\i
Figure 6-1.
OWRD Observation Wells and Precipitation Stations
ln Vicinity of Thornburgh
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Ben{) Precipitation stations L: --J StudyArea
3860 owRD observation well Range/Township Boundaries
o Proposed Thornburgh Wells
-
Highways
Well data is from OWRD:
wwwwrd.state.or. us/OWRD/GWwell data. html
NORTHWEST
lald&WsE, rxc.^N12
City
N
A036Miles
Streams
Case Study:Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
o=ccN@.9ttLExoa!6!ogodNCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationNORTHWESTIand & Wbter, ruc.Consulting in HydrogeologyFigure6-2. Annual Precipitation at Six Sites in Upper Deschutes Basin---r- Bend ----r* Brothers Madras*r^'- Prineville ---r- Redmond * Wickiup Dam3530q25oo.E.Ei20.9(E.E.g(,o,t^CL(Etrc(to501 9901992199419961998 2000Water Year (Oct 1 - Sept 30)2002200420062008Recent data show significantly less rainfallcompared to the period 1993-19971lTime period simulated in theUSGS model, 1993-1997at'Yi/\:': /(
365345325a!oofil=oCLo(Eo3052852652451 9901992199419961998 2000Water Year (Oct I - Sept 30)2002200420062008)a)a(a)(a(o)aaa()(adNNORTHWESTIend & T[/ats, ruc.Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-3. Days of Snow Per Water Year at Wickiup Dam
274278aaaartaaaaaO aa ar) aaaao aaaaaa{aaa aoaaaaiaaaaaoaaaraaaaaaaaa'aa)aaaaaaaaaaa,),looooIJ.UEfo!tEo;o6ooooo=2822862902941111721111761t1t801111841t1t88Date1111921t11961t11001t1to41t1lo8NORTHWESTIand & Water, INc.,:.ryConsulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-4.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3903Max Depth = 440 feetData from OWRD website: hftp://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/GWwell-data.shtmlDlprojects\Thomburgh\WaterlevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls;Fig64 DESC 3903
ooooa!toocG'-9otrooo.E=2932973013053093133171t1t721t1t761111801111841t1188Date1t1t921t1196lnlao111lo41t1t08ao",e.aO1aaaaa'a a* aaataa aaaooo faai)aaOoooooaaaoloNORTHWESTIend & Water, rr*c.ANConsulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-5.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3949 ({5S/{3E-2{ADB{)Max Depth = 390 feetData from OWRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/GWwell-data.shtmlDiprojects\Thornburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls; Fig 6-5 DESC 3949
240244Ioo5o(tGto!Et!J!oooooJLoaatg=248aaaaaaaoaaaaoa ao oaataaoaaa.ao -oo'aaaaaaaa a aatoa2522562601nn21t1t761111801t1t841t1188Date1t1t921111961t1loo1t1lo41l1lo8NORTHWESTI^and & Water, mc.^sNConsulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-6.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESG 3581 ({ssfizE t4CDDIMax Depth = 3O3 feetDatl from OWRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/GWwell-data.shtmlDlprojects\Thomburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObsWellData xls;Fig 6-6 DESC 3581
100104ooato(!E)ottrat'oooooJoG=1081121161201111721t11761111801t11841t1t$gDate1t11921t11961t1t001t11041t1tog)aaaafaoolt'lat a t ...aaatat'*ataa.*aa,oaoaO1NORTHWESTland & Water, mc.^SNConsulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-7.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESG 8626 ({4S/{2E'O2CCG)Maximum depth = 160 feetData from OWRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or-us/OwRD/GWwell-data.shtmlDlprojects\Thornburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObswellData'xls;fi9 6-7 DESC 8626
340344o,ooo.Ut2ol,cG!ooooooG=3483523563601t1t721t1t761t1t801t1t841t1t88Date1t11921t1t961t1t001t1t04111108)aaaa(laaaOoaoooaaa' . .Naaaoa)oool.o!1,NORTHWESltand & Water, rNc.Consulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-8.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC {957 ({4S/{1E'OIDDDi)Maximum depth = 410 feetData from OWRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRDiGWwell-data.shtmlDlprojects\Thornburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls;fig 6-8 DESC 1957
283287ooatoIEEoItc.E3ooooooG=2912952993031t1t72't21311761t1tB21t1tB71t2t921t1t971t2t021t2t07Date)oOaOaaOtrtrtoaalooo.oaaa(a(boaoaa1OooattaaIFigure 5-9.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESG 3193 ({5S/{Maximum depth = 365 feetData from owRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/owRD/GWwell_data.shtmlNOF.THWESTknd & Water, rNc.....*t!"ffiConsulting in Hydrogeology*tNDlprojects\Thornburgh\waterlevelData\USGS-ObswellData.xls;fig 6-9 DESC 3193
240244O'oaaaoooooto(E!)o!tIE'.9oo6ooG=2482522562601t1t721nn61t1t801t1t84111188Date1111921t1t961t1toO1t1to41t1t08Figure 6-{0.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3614 (Eagle Grest WellNORTHWESTLand & Water, rNc.''.;ffiConsultiag iu HydrogeologyMaximum Depth = 330 feetData from OWRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRDiGWwell-data.shtmlDiprojects\Thomburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls;fig 6-10 DESC 3614
ooqi(,fit!:'o€tr.UJ'oooEooo=2232272312352392432471t1t721t1t761t1t801t1t841t1t88Date1t1t921t1t961t1toj1t1t041t1108aaoaaaoaaNORTHWESTIand & Water, lnc.Consulting in HydrogeologyFigure 6-'l'1.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESG 53714 (Eagle Grest #3)Max Depth = 290 feetData from OWRD website:http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/GWwell-data.shtmlD:\projects\Thornburgh\WaterLevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls;fig 6-1 1 DESC 53714
210214ood(,.ELIo!,trtu'oooooLoGB218ta2222262301111721111761111801111841t1t88Date1t1t921t1t961t1loo1t1t041t1108Figure 6,-12.Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESG 386 (Eagle Grest #{)NORTHWESTL^and & Water, rHc...:d*r@Consulting in HydrogeologyMaximum Depth = 268 feetData from owRD website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/owRD/GWwell_data.shtmlDlprojects\Thornburgh\WaterlevelData\USGS-ObsWellData.xls;fig 6-12 DESC 386
97
Desahutes nr
lr!,tlu\14091500
UJ
U'7
u
F n!-eiai
rr.t',r.',A'l
't4090400rk lir
dras
Culver
:n a0lti
st,r'
4050000
. ,.J
Tulralo Ck nr Bend tcrrtl
at Sisters
3.rceiTa: ,:o*.
r.,,i'e
Sqi-raw (Whychus)
.J
S.
.r-iI?
U
Saii a','l
Pass
t. (;.14087500
\1-' - t4ogSsoo+.r1 ,,( -tt :1
, Blrci;f qL it:
Deschutes at Lovver Bridge,nr
: i] r1.,r,,,",,,'i lr
.1...,leschutes a'i Clne'-F'alls
nf Bend
:
Deschutes at Benham Fails
Sra rl iisair
t (.)
::e',,'i\er rl'it
r' l'.,,,itu.t '
"' n ,t ,l:''
,/:/iiai1,l
lt,,/7
A(nr,t's
Deschutes Below '
Wickiup Res. :
Llitle Deschutes nr
Crescenl Creek '"
EXPLANATION
14063009\Slream gage and
U.S. Geological
Survey gaging
station number
10 MILES0
O 5 10 KILOMETERS
l}t
2,
srudY
'Il,llaneite
122ioo'121i00'
44130'
44joo'
43J30',
JN NORTHl['EST
land & Water, INc.
Case Sludy: Thomburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
cotrsultiilg iu Hydrogeology
Figure 6-13.
Selected Stream-Gaging Stations in the Upper Deschutes
Basin, Oregon (From Gannett and others,20O1l
Gaging staiion used in this rePort
3...pdf
6a.t,EdID3E.co.9,o250225200175150't25100755025010t1t92 10t1193 1011194 1011195 1011196 1011197 101119810/1/99 10/1/00Date1ot1t01 10t1lo2 10l1lo3 1011104 'lol1lo5 1011106 1011107--if\AI)h)IIIir*Ju-Jlf,t\\J't h\r1IJPeriod of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1997tJrIIil-r,tJdNNORTHWESTLand & Water, lxc.-ffiConsulting in FiydrogeologyCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-{4. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging StationCREO - Grescent Greek at Grescent Lake' ORDlprojects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesStreamData.xls;6-14 CREO-plot
oo.sdoqA().9o20001 9001 80017001 6001 5001400130012001 1001 00090080070060050040030020010001ot1t92 'lol1l93 101',1194 1011195 1011196 1011197 10111981011t99 10/1/00Date1ot1to1 1ol1to2 1ot1to3 1011104 10l1lo5 1011106 1011107tIil.riltJIflILJldtJ- 'lt_JIIJIl,N{"'trlluItllrVutttl- Period of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1997 -r I ll rI lrlI1IrIIIIIJIllIIIIIll\JIrtFigure 6-{5. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Station{4056500 - Deschutes River below Wickiup Res.' ORrtNNORTHWEST[,and & Water, rNc.Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationDlprojects\Thomburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesStreamData.xls:6-15 Wico-plot
^sNCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationNORTHWESTIand & Water, ruc.Consulting in HydrogeologYFigure 6-16. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Station{4063000 - LAPO Little Deschutes River near LaPine' OR1000900800700o 600(,.ES 5ootgo.9,o 40030020010001ot1t92 1ot1t93 1011194 fi11195 1011196 1011197 10/1/9810t1t99 1011100Date10l1lo1 1ot1lo2 1ot1t03 1011104 1011lo5 1011106 1011107{\-Ir_l-I#V'I '.I1,1/1f' I I/' lrllIfiluIIJl*r*il" IITTIrl\IttHfrIhtfiIIiltltIIill,{|tthIIilIrillrl'lfT\Ill[J
o!.d.oo@1=oaUc(a=aaa)3jo€ooqgcoaado3ooox,slo{@ofEDischarge, in cfs(Jrooo)oooN)ooot\)('|ooooo(tooo(oNo(o(^)o(o5o(o(rlo(oo)o@-.lo(o@o(oo(o!lo-oooooooN)oo(,)oo5ooCDooo)oo{o=b--34aE-I{I-----P{:-.!-=-{€__--,-----<T]o*=.oo-oao_ooao'ac-aoU)3o-o--!P_J(o(0OJIJ(o(o{=-s.€FF€!F-F-E=:--+t>5-_.E=t€aEiloo)sEb-9:so-+EqIdoaiO-mn<o$o=Oot+4oFE8asr'sH2rrnotrdqe.o0qoo0qazoFtslll!(al*l-1|BE'o'=$6i8e,oftrl{2Eoe!!lo3osqiC.tHE?€o!rr!o5,+.ro99;5!tslq3=1l(o!to;f-l}9g'
500450400350300]A(,oPt 250GEo.!2o2001501005001ot1t92 1011193 1011194 1011195 1011196 1011197 101119810t1t99 10/1/00Date1ol1l01 1ot1lo2 1ot1l03 'l0l1lo4 10/1/05 1011106 1011107Illftr{tilliurJII'IIrlilr1I!NI[rilt[ulLllil.Period of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1997Figure 6-{8. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Stationi4O73OO{ TUMO - Tumalo Greek nr Bend' ORA\NON.THWESTLand & Water, ruc.Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationDiprojects\Thomburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesstreamOata.xls;6-18 TUMO-plot
..._-
-
I:-!
--
=
-
.'',1
-
F
Ei-
--=
-tr
--
-
G _t
--
--
-.--a==
--
4
<G
-
d =-
t-o)o,
I
cf)O)o)
c)lJo
E
U)(,
ct)l
LotsE
ooo)L
oEo
Lq)
TL
-:
I
-
E
-
F
H
-
-
-
--------e
E--<.....-t
-#
-:rh-r J--q
-J
_3
-l
-
E--
F-o
o
(oo
o
lr)o
o
sfo
o
(f,o
o
No
C)
o
o
oo
o
o
aB_o
O)
o
oO)
o
l-O)
o
(oo)
o
roO)
o
so)
o
(')o,
o
(\o)
oooo9a9666409N66@sfN
sJ3 u! 'eoieqoslo
o
Fdvtz
lrl rj.
F..H
rEF
I.oB
14€
OHzs
E
.9+,r!laoo
.E
UIo(|,
Lo5tct!Lo'g€ir
Ei
E$o3og
fiHdoE9oHoct
=1\.8, IllF
ODo
oob!o
E
OD
U
.9
:(S
oorD>truJ
i",H
=o--ohc-!o!2 o)
'-- J>oEE6rooa-_d=
cq)dl
oooNo\i
-9(L
o,
9-r6ooE6
EaooaEooo,oioEE(0g
ato
!Eo
Faoq)'0
o4o
1000900800700,p 600o.s$ 5ooo.CC'oo 4oo300200100010t1t27913012910t1t319/30/3310t1t359130t37Date10/1/399t30t4110t1t439t30t451011147ilItTtlIllilllil1ilililII,lilI1lItlIil'-liflllillllilflIt''1aI.lr'lIllIl*'lItl/INORTHI[iESTLand & Water, txc..,.!44#Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-20. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Station14O745OO Deschutes at Gline Falls Nr RedmondD:\projects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesStreamData.xls;6-20 Plot-14074500 cline
u,t).E{tEDo.Co.12o1 000900800700600500400300200100010t1t92 1011t93 1011194 '1011195 1011196 1011197 10/1/9810/1/99 1011lO0Date10t1to1 10t1t02 1011103 1011104 10l1lo5 10t1106 1011107iltlIil'Iilrrlrurlilt^eNNORTH\vESTIand & Water, rNc.Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thomburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 2{. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Station14074630 Deschutes at Lower Bridge near TerrebonneDlprojects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesslreamData.xls;6-21 Plot-14074630 Tenbon
o(tEdIDG(,.9,o500450400350300250200150100500't0t1t92 10/1/93 1011194 1011195 10/1/96 1011197 ',101119810t1t99 10t1t00Date1011t0't 10t1t02 10t1to3 1011104 1011105 10/1/06 1011107llu| rytIrryLJ{-rltltPeriod of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1 997llll^sNNORTHWESTland & Water, rNc.Consulting in HydrogeologyCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-22. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging Station'|4O75OOO SQSO - Whychus (Squaw) Greek at Sisters' ORD:\projects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesStr€amData.xls;6-22 SQSO-plot
rlIIu1llr ,Ilill.r r.fl1t'Irtllpr.JJiltlllhilh{IrltlUr,tlf,*lIt,,rtldlllllPeriod of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1997I,tllttrtl,llIrtF[dIil-tIhl!hIrltilIlril'|l,tto.EatED(!o.9o40003500300025002000'15001 00050001ot1t92 1011193 1011194 1011195 1011196 1011197 101',119810t1t99 ',totlloo 1011101Date10t1to2 10t1to3 1011104 10l1lo5 1011106NORTHWESTtand & Wbter, INc.Consulting in tlydrogeologyCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-23. Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging StationUSGS {4076500 Deschutes River near Gulver' OregonDlprojects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschutesStreamData.xls;6-23 Plot-14076500 Cul
1 200011000I 00009000th(,:oED(l.t(,.9,o800070006000500040003000200010t1t92 10t1t93 10t1194 1011195 ',10t1196 101',U97 'l0l'119810t1tgs 1011100Date10t1t01 10t1t02 101'llo3 1011104 1011105 1011106 1011107lrytflIt'[.ril|tnlnhll.Iu'Hlilllnlq^dttlIll-,IIFhII I I I I ll IPeriod of record for USGS model, 1993 - 1997r l r tl lil I1Itlh[!Iff!l,'1r'utrlt'T\F!Itlrilll'Jt^SNNORTHWESTIandaJ3q. fq.Consultiug irr HydrogeologyCase Study: Thornburgh ResortWater Resources lmpact EvaluationFigure 6-24, Streamflow Hydrograph for Gaging StationUSGS i4O925OO Deschutes River near Madras' ORDlprojects\Thornburgh\Streamflow\DeschulesStreamData.xls;6-24 Plot-1 4092500 madras
ExEa'6)
nj3c
o!
a()
c)'6'
o-<i1C
^1
122.6
3
1
27.2
128.
1
'?# :$fr2 5
138I
r?147.2tr:.:l!:
rLz
14Ea..A
a
lo
146.a 3
aa
154.5!t.\
,.]
!o
F
8
Figure 6-25.
Gains or Losses to Deschutes River
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
OWRD August 2005 Data
160.0r River Mile
Groundwater Gain or Loss, in cfs per mile
--8.0
- -5.0 1.2Total9ain (+; or loss (-) for
--:r..' :4.9--1.0 shaded reach between
_0.g _ 0.0 measurement locations
O Proposed Thornburgh Wells
-
Streams
-
Highway
: : Township/Range
Miles
0 1.5 3
Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation ^tN
6
N
A
City or Town Limits
NONTHn/SST
Iand&Vabr. txc
0.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 10.0
{ffiR*r 10.1 - 50.0
i-50.1 -91 .3
.t.-
.2
26.
27.2
7
->
aI
1
Figure 6-26
Stream Temperature
From Thermal lnfrared Data
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Stream temperature, in degrees C
MEDIAN proposed. 3.5-8.0 o Thornburgh Wells
. 8.1 - 10.0 _streamso 10.1 - 12.0 Highways
o River Mile
Milesr036 12
Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
NORTHVEST
Isnd&\Vah, $lc.
N
ACity or Town Limits
. 12.1
I 14.1
r 16.1
18.1
" 20.1
3 22.1
. 24.1
3 26.1
- 14.0
- 16.0
- 18.0
- 20.0
-22.0
- 24.0
- 26.0
- 28.0
t
a
+i
sry
"$l_bl't
8 I 10 12*)a
'l
:
:
h
/,
Paullna c(ssk--
o\
qi
T,€
t .ri
a $\.
i
ScenariolQa,,rewsolver.mxd\I-{(to)5N)(r)o-.1(rt('lO)(osa\\-Ti-l'r'+$\l\ir-\;-I!(,trtr,rtr O aD ='';'5 O o 3;J<--r--JL-l9.et =l.ai= f.iri o -,(OO^5r-il -i8.i9oa?ag='ii iaE"f; iaF *sE=A(,t:a otgs\<5:\-, I- qi3;95@olrifiao o :o._ .^ L/ fl(J (JN) A =U)-+rl:-9 9 EEA O .*=N)'i^tr--LAu' ;i {z.bi ,'U)+o0)o-@dooL+=o€*112t,30o.-F,r€aB<!.aA6frdWCJ)!oo6'ovog)o)oa=a ^5[ :l 3iElipq N), o<Y S. O)o.* = foO@='o.BE.(Dllc- @n(o=o\uati8.ZaOd3!P_d
tewsolver.mxdScenario2QaxiiItiEllXffll!1" " ' " i-.,- ."1'- " . --''_- '._o)-{ol5N)G)O,'."'i'\:, ;.O)I-.t1l!(,,Ttr'Ttr O iD ='rI'3 O o 3;J--r.-E i;; !,(CtO^5r-il Nigl\'?a*ogrii iAEf; iaE BsHiF1o o\<=f.iFEf5@ori tfiao o :ab b y?N A =U)r r :59 9 EEr e ,*3() l\J -J6" s E3E',@+o0)a@0)+ooco1A€ ;$EE:la(D='ut -6Ig.(DE'|zboAF8o.r€rHrFsZblt -tWU)Eoo6'o-vo0)c,JoallcT @n6 gE6=EU,
lbuh\GlS\MXDs\Col Scen 1 .mxd2a"(,NA5 8,Fd9E- =di--9-r(aE d.to E.9o!r !r=.{oci.rO-{!=ioEo9.f,dgsdaNgloo-o3rooNNlcIIg5OE-O,-Ea9qE$U,-iIlrti-7(d'g3€U'@Eoo.ovo0)ofoU']l335' e.ooaaU,A-aoooo33a@o-EtW<oDgoon9ocoo-o<c'-JEqloetci!4f>ntooo<-9a*a''l*ll.l=gu@Lo-do)0e0.'l)t,)i)i.s(ooi:
Dects\] ,. .,lS\MXDs\Contours L1 Scen2.mxd)a^!8(j5I4"0.4''"' . 'l:i,,li+c3.t@o'.i5 8,3dqE- =fli--9-rsrP to Er!Pooo=.{ociN3!:tEoEo9.r,dP3., AN(troo-ot-!,ot\tIlcI55(Do-OrA-o@aC)<E6Ed6'NIIIli-v6'E3€;aEoo5c,vo0)ooarl33=' .$.ooa-aaoooo33U, U'E250o-n"ilrF€5an,4Wogc)D3ooiEocoo-o<c"o+E -e,TUE!AE>v5Oo9<Ya*6','l:l=o6n9Lo-do)
1-mxd)i,.:':s('l(,5:'--.,'"'i-' ..'-coo\)5 8,Fe gFJt*-rfg3'9sJA0, !,;8.rO-{!=5pp.5,dPsraNoloo-o3t-0lENIt-0)oJ$@oo)3iII(6'{0)o@Eoa.c)no0)c,oail33=' .e.ooa-99--ooo0)33v, q,Ez50o'z86'r4r,fi:luIt "qwo'l:l=g5c)DEooiEoc@cLo<c"o+Eq-=3qarEfle>vfoo@<-9@)6',C-toooaoo€oQvq)J(oomIo6q)
VJ.!-_:.-''tu9t, In,,. 'i0tII6!! --,t.lt:a;\;sureerls rouil,lrsueoJls Joleur soqceau culcadss{ei'aq6rp Z otJeuocs '7 rcAe1e6ueg ; : sllsM Pesodo.r6 O2 .refie1 uo4 slc AZ't buldrund'ZolrBuocs'7 nfre1un op/nero polelnclec lo sJnoluo9'9-2 eln6;3rstrtrl{?FISITTON?!u.raqqlhvl{lrcVN9e0soltruEsrslleuy pedul socJnosou JoleMposeg qDrnqurotll :,{pngg ese3eery{pn1s [=
Exq
C
Q)oU)f.-
!i
13 14 15
Q','
)
t'tI,
]:
'l
.a \.,.'. )oie\l
i'
1'\
t.-:,
ir'
i-l
o 10
Figure 7-7.
Gontours of Calculated Drawdown
Layer 7, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2
o ProposedWells
Layer 7, Scenario HighwaYs
Specific Reaches major streams
minor streams
NOnrliwEs{
tand &Shtet, ffc.
AN
City
N
A
Resort
El studyArea
Case Study: Thornburgh
Water Resources lmpact
-
Miles036
DLTScen2.mxd:..-,. .5o),t/(t' ,j.OOlt@(oo.,!'a', itg q,Eo ==18'd.uro booO-hqq6'9NFTdtrcLEs='2(oXo)oirEstjooto1.qlE{.licjITOEaO:E@oc)<g6i.6oN)IIIIIV,^' o).U5oa@Eoa.c)vo0)c)Joarl3=5' e.oo-aaa-aooo0)33ou,Ez30a.-80,rodrfjfl-i=s=aoon9ocado<c"r!o+oxoY=oYiHt=>7J(D0rE<Ya]6''l:l=6-n9co-do)
!x
EoE
co
6ooIo
=Eocoo()oo
ox
=4
!!co
F
od).6.
(!4!
Creek
T155
RllE
ot
T14S
R12E
T15S
R12E T15S
R13E
FB
F
T165
Rl1E
east
half
Figure 9-1.
Area of Deepened Well Survey
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
o Proposed Thornburgh Wells
Highway
Search Area Deepened Wells
Cities and Towns
Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
Miles
NORT
Land&
HVEST
WaE, rnc
N
A
0 3 $N6
StudyArea
Streams
I
\
T165
RI2E
XE-o
=dlco
loc
g
F
ox
9.
!c
oEF
oo'6'
(L
3
.:l
*,o
s€s
oq
o o
Figure 10-1.
CriticalArea Habitat For Bull Trout
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005)
* BullTrout Habitat Endpoints
I Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Streams
ffi BullTrout Critical Habitat, Lakes
StudyArea
Streams
Proposed Thornburgh Wells
Cities and Towns
Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
NORTHII'EST
land&'lffshr, ruc
o
rtN6
N
AHighway
Miles
Core Redband Trout
Population, OWFD 2008
0 1.5 3
"....-*}fuPeltot!'
Daml
-___Lgte
vl\\\\to
Jtr r
N
l
^9{lJr
ct
,l ,X
Vcnrirrt....1.
?d
11
1z
u\
l.t-l:f
a /iJ.,
UETOLT ffi(p
lnso
d
ffi
ress
RM1 ffi
t
,
tv'l
Pas!(
rKenzir =1-OtlD(
. &'s.'r$1{
^
1
CREEK
ZONE
UTES
Location of
Approxi
Proposed
Resort
'En*:-
ffi t:
I
)-
RIVER
r 1
-i;dl'"/,
u)
O
65C'
of Little Deschutes
20'
:a
RIVERZON
'p:41-t dt.It.!
l
.. 1:7
21
; ,{?
",:ill 22
AXt 23LITTLE DESGHUTES
RIVERZONE
,UC 24
&25
BoL)
26O 5 10 KILOI'ETERS
5 '10 ilitlEs
1 27
Figure {{-{
OWRD Deschutes
Ground Water
Zones of lmpact
A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort
Water Resources lmpact Evaluation
NORIHgIESTland & Water, rnc.
MarkYrngglaSt0ctatls
^N
)l,i
o
ooo
=RbN6N
=dECto
€sr
s&,cooir5
€E
9;do
8+
Ea;bo=
9.6b3NI
6qE5!-Q
ddda
a^}'
66
oE
^' 3id={ototsa
122Joo'121
44i30'
-q;
OF
i!g
zd
{.t 6rEocoodo
oo
*ei;oo
6s_
.;Uoodc
o!
b9
o-UO
5boF
iEE9
ooENDL>t,;sfote!oENt-96o-EG
d0zix
EbgFOEc0 0-
44jco'
43j30'
Appendix A.
Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Description
Appendix A. Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Descriptions
Gcology
Clarno Formation
The Eocene Clarno Formation consists of lavas, mudflows, tuffaceous sediments, ash flows, claystone, siltstone and
conglomerate of predominantly andesitic composition (Enlows and Parker, 1972; Noblett, 1981; and Peck, 1964). Individual
rock units are laterally discontinuous and stream-reworked material is common. Paleosols and saprolites are dispersed
thnoughout the Clamo Formation (Bestland and Retallack, 1964).
John Dqv Formation
The Oligocene to late Miocene John Day Formation unconformably overlies the Clarno Formation. The John Day Formation
consists predominantly of pervasively altered andesitic ash flows, air-fall tuffs and tuffaceous claystone. The formation also
includes rhyolite domes, and andesite and basalt lava flows. The John Day Formation material issued from volcanic vents
within its the basin of deposition and volcanoes to west in the ancestral Cascades. The tuffaceous material that comprises the
bulk of the formation is altered to clay and zeolite minerals. The uplifting of the area along the axis of the Blue Mountain
anticline and subsequent erosion has resulted in occurrence of the John Day Formation around the periphery of the Clarno
Formation upland. The John Day Formation occurs just east of Prineville and extends north from Smith Rock to Trout Creek
at the north end of the UDB. North of Trout Creek the formation is covered by Grande Ronde basalt of the Columbia River
Basalt Group. The John Day Formation extends to the west beneath Quaternary to Miocene lava and ash flows and
volcaniclastic deposits in the central portion of the UDB to interfinger with volcanic material of the older Westem Cascades
(Lite and Gannett, 2002; Shenod et al, 2004). Recent mapping work done by McClaughry (2007), with the Oregon
Department of Geolory and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), has identified a large caldera within the John Day Formation
centered near Prineville. The Crooked River caldera is filled txnth zr.,olitized pumiceJithic tuff and rhyolite flows that issued^ .n vents that ringed the collapse structure. It is likely that there are other calderas associated with the John Day Formation.
Trrc Miocene Picture Gorge basalt lava flows overlie the John Day Formation in the eastem most portion of the UDB. In the
Prineville area the Miocene Prineville basalt lava flows overlie the John Day Formation and are overlain by late Miocene and
Pliocene basalts lava flows of the Deschutes Formation. North of the UDB the Prineville basalt lava flows interfinger with the
Grande Ronde basalt lava flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group over a wide area extending from the Portland to the John
Day River (Hooper, et al, 1993). The thickest section (690 feet) is located south of Prineville near Bowman Dam and it is
suspected that the basalt erupted from Basin and Range type extensional fractures in this area (McClaughry,2007).
Deschutes Formation
The late Miocene to Pliocene Deschutes Formation occurs in the area north of Bend and primarily west of the Deschutes
River. To the south, north and northeast of Madras the Deschutes Formation laps onto uplands consisting of the John Day
Formation The Deschutes Formation is a complex assemblage of volcaniclastic sedimentary and volcanic rocks consisting
of; mudflows, debris flows, sandstone, conglomerate, basalt, basaltic-andesite and andesite lava flows, ash-flow tuffand air-
fall ash (Shenod, et al, 2004). The formation also includes the Cline Buttes rhyolite dome complex, the rhyodacite lava flows
near Steelhead Falls and scattered cinder cones marking vents that were sources for lava flows. The volcaniclastic sediments,
ash-flows and lava flows primarily derived from the High Cascades were deposited in a basin aligned along the east flank of
the High Cascades through which the ancestral Deschutes River flowed. East of the Deschutes River and south of Bend the
Deschutes Formation is buried beneath lava flows of the Newberry Volcano. The basin was defined on the east by uplands
consisting of the John Day Formation. The western part of the Deschutes Formation is dominated by andesite and basaltic-
andesite lava flows deposited on the flanks of the early High Cascades (Smith, 1991). The more fluid basaltic lavas flowed far
into the central basin which was being inundated with coarse grained volcaniclastic sediments and ash-flows. The channel of
the ancestral Deschutes River and the shallow braided channels of its tributaries were regularly rapidly filled and buried by
debris flows related to eruptive events thus forcing streams to establish new channels and profiles and rework earlier deposits.
r ava and ash flows that flowed into the central portion of the basin filled shallow sinuous channels.
',,,i. MukIugQI{:..4 ASS0CIATES
In the late Miocene to early Pliocene of the High Cascade Mountains subsided into a graben bounded on the east by the Green
Ridge fault and by the Horse Creek fault zone on the west. Thus the central portion of the UDB was robbed of its sowce of
volcaniclastic sediments that had inundated the basin (Shenod, et aI,2004; Smith, 1991). Today the deeply incised canyons
: Deschutes River, Crooked River and tributaries provide excellent exposures of the Deschutes Formation.
Pliocene Volcanic and Sedimentary Rocks
Pliocene volcanics within UDB include basaltic-andesite lava flows that form the shield volcanoes of Little Squaw Back and
Squaw Back Ridge; two low buttes north of Sisters. These two small shield volcanoes cap basalt lava flows of the Deschutes
Formation. The basalt of Redmond and Dry River are lava flows in the Redmond area and to the east and southeast of
Redmond (Sherrod, et aL,2004). These lavas likely erupted from fissure vents southeast of the basin in the High lava Plains
province. Pleistocene to Pliocene sediments include alluvial fan deposits derived from uplands composed of the John Day
Formation and Prineville basalt on the lower flanks Powell Butte and to the north of Prineville (Shenod, et aL,2004).
Ouaternaryt Volcanics
During the Pleistocene a number of pyroclastic eruptions occurred in an area that has been referred to as the Tumalo volcanic
center, an area between Bend and Broken Top mountain (Hill and Taylor, 1990). Ash-flow tuffs and pumice air-fall deposits
occur west and north of Bend. These deposits overlie Deschutes Formation material and are overlain by Newberry volcano
basalt lava flows and andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows of the High Cascades. Faults of the Sisters fault zone cut the
pyroclastic deposits and the overlying lava flows.
The Quaternary volcanic field of the High Cascades and Newberry shield volcano cover large areas in the westem and
southwestem portions of the UDB. The High Cascades includes the Mount Bachelor volcanic chain consisting of a chain of
basaltic-andesite shield volcanoes extending south from Mount Bachelor to the southwest corner of the UDB. The major
High Cascade volcanoes include: Broken Top, The Three Sisters, Mount Washington, Three Fingered Jack and Mount
Jeflerson. There are many smaller vents. Rock types include; basaltic-andesite lava flows and pyroclastics, basalt lava flows
and cinder cones, and dacite, rhyodacite and rhyolite lava flows and domes. The vesicular basalt lava flows of the Newberry
volcano cover a large area to the east of Bend, extending from the summit crater to just north of Redmond.
Hydrogeology
The properties of earth materials that influence the movement of groundwater are of primary concern. The porosity and the
degree to which pores are connected (permeability) in rocks and unconsolidated material are dependant on many factors. Two
examples of factors that determine a rocks initial porosity and permeability are the energJ of the depositional environment for
sediments and the volatile content of erupted magrfirs. The initial porosity and permeability may be reduce or increased by
weathering hydrothermal alteration and deformational fracturing.
The basement of the UDB groundwater flow system is largely defined by older less permeable rocks that underlie the
Miocene to Quaternary volcanics and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks of the basin. These include the altered upper Eocene
to lower Miocene volcanics and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks of the John Day Formation that extend from the east to
interfinger with Miocene to Pliocene volcanics of the ancestral Cascade Range (Fig. 5-1). The John Day Formation also
defines much of the eastem and northern lateral boundaries of the groundwater flow system The John Day Formation has
very low permeability due to diagenetic and hydrothermal alteration of the original volcanic material, largely ash, to clay and
zeolite minerals. The andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows and intrusives of the ancestral Cascades are pervasively
hydrothermally altered resulting in low permeability. The basement of the flow system beneath the Newberry volcano area is
also defined at depth by pervasive hydrothermal alteration that has greatly reduce permeability (Lite and Gannett, 2002).
Quatemary volcanic deposits of the High Cascades and the Newberry Volcano are very permeable. The geat majority of
groundwater recharge occurs in the very permeable Quatemary deposits of the High Cascades and Newberry volcano. The
greatest recharge occurs along the Cascade crest where the annual precipitation can locally exceed 100 inches annually.
Precipitation and snowmelt rapidly percolate into the fractured lava flows and teplra deposits. To the south of Bend and west
-Green Ridge and Sisters Fault zones the High Cascade and Newberry volcanic deposits are saturated and discharge to
sp.-..g-creeks. Fall River and the upper Metolius River are classic examples of this discharge.
,,, Illgh,Ibggr
: A$$0ClAf:S
The leaky network of unlined irrigation canals to the northwest, north and east of Bend which are cut into High Cascade and
Newberry volcanics ars an important source of recharge. Approximately 460/o of the water diverted, primarily from the
Deschutes River, into the canals leaks out of the bottoms of the canals (Gannett, et aI,2001). The great majority of the water
:d from the canals returns as groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River and Crooked River in the northern portion of
r.^- LJDB. A portion of the water leaked from the canals recharges perched aquifers that supply shallower water wells.
The Deschutes Formation is the principal aquifer and the great majority of groundwater in the UDB flows in a northerly
direction through it to discharge to the Deschutes River, Metolius River and the lower Crooked River. At the northern end of
the UDB the impermeable rising basement rock of the John Day Formation, against which the Deschutes Formation
terminates, forces essentially all of the groundwater in the Deschutes Formation to discharge to streams in the tlree rivers
confluence area, at and upstream of Lake Billy Chinook. The groundwater discharge in the confluence area totals
approximately 2,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Gannett and Lite, 2004).
A generalized model for the deposition of the Deschutes Formation provides insight into the permeability distribution within
the Deschutes Formation. The model was initially proposed by Smith (1986) and is referred to in water resource studies of the
UDB published by the USGS (Lite and Gannett, 2002; Gawrctt and Lite,2004). The model recognizes tlree depositional
environments to the east of the ancestral High Cascade volcanic arc, the prirnary source area: an arc-adjacent alluvial plane,
the ancestral Deschutes River, and the inactive-basin margin (Fig. 5-3). In the arc-adjacent alluvial plain facies the volume of
lava flows decrease and the volume of volcaniclastic sediments increase from west to east. The arc-adjacent alluvial plain
facies composes the bulk of the Deschutes Formation and it is chiefly composed of volcaniclastic sediments. Generally the
grain size of the sediments and therefore, permeability decreases to the east and north in the basin.
The ancestral Deschutes River facies is characterizedby channel deposits of the ancient river. These channel deposits consist
of very permeable coarse sandstones and conglomerates, and intra-canyon basalt lava flows. The inactive-basin margin facies
consists of generally fine grain less permeable sediments deposited along the eastern margin of the basin by streams draining
uplands composed principally of the John Day Formation. The inactive-basin margin facies also includes volcaniclastic
sediments and air-fall ash of the of the High Cascade volcanic arc province.
'rrth proximal facies constitutes the bulk of the Deschutes Formation along the western and southern margins of the
u,r.rsitional basin consisting primarily of lava flows, flow breccias and coarser tephra (Lite and Gannett, 2002). This
permeable facies is composed of material deposited in near proximity to volcanic vents of the High Cascades and Newberry
Volcano.
. j : MarkY_ugeii' :' AS$0e IAIES
Appendix B.
Selected Water Well Logs for Thornburgh Area
If
A
\NoFrcE To wATER
The orlginal and first of this
are to be the
+Wa,
SALEM,within 30 days from
of well
1) OWNEB:
wArE*ffirR"SS# lV ES"l
(z) TYPE OF WOBK (check)!
New weu EL Deepening E Reeonautlonlng E
describe materlal and in Item 12.
srArn or oBEGqg[JV ] 31979 State Well No.
SOURCES DEPtrt*" Permlt No.
ORECON
(r0) LocaTroN oF WELL:
county Deschutes well nmber
SE l,i ]{W t/4 secuon 25 rl 5-S n. 1 1-E . w.n4
Bearlne and dlstance from sectlon or subdlvision oomer
(11) WATEE LEVEL: Completed well.
Statlc
Artesian pressure lbs, per square inch. Date
(12) WELL LOG: Diameter of weu berow
DeptJr drilled f)S 2 ft. Depth of completed
No.
trormation: Describe color, texture, graln size arid structure of materials;
and show tlrickness and neture of each stratum and aquifer penetrated,
with at least one entry for each change of formatlon. Beport each chatrge ln
Bosltion ot Static Water Levcl ud hdicatc IrrlnciDal water-Dcarlng strats,
MATERIAL awL
.(Please type or
(Do not write
r.*" Mr. iloha $ugac ..
eaa""'.44 N.I{. iafayettri-Bend, 0reg.a7701
Abandon E
(s) TYPE OF WELL:
Rotary E[ Driven []
- E tffiE
(5) -CASING INSTALLED: Threaded E werded B. tr
8 " Dram. rrom .*.t - tt. ro ..4,h.-.-.. n. cage .r.25D....l: "iill l"il:--.::;:ll --:.:l llil:: :: -:-:
(6)
(4) PBOPOSED USE (check):
Domestic E, Industrlal D Munlclpa.l [f
Irrigetlon E Test l4lell E Other tr
to
Well screen hstaled? D
g
weU ft.
of
Slze of
Manu.facturer's Name
fe
ft.
ft.
rm. .--.----,.-.---Slet from tt.
(8) WnLL TESTS: ,"JfSgSH,"lHiiHi"y"1*" rever ts
Oa pump test mader E Y:s )CNo If yes, by wlrom? .
Yleld: gal./mln. with = ft. drEwdown ettef hrs.
tlow
Temperature of urater
(e) coNsTRUcTroN
Well seal-Material used (tEnntT
Well sealed from land surface to 2A
Dlarneter of $'eU bore to bottom of seal
Dlameter of well bore below seal
Number of sacks of cement used
in.
well seel sacks
Ifow was cement grout placed?
tt.after hrs.
Depth arteslan llow encountered ..--...*_ ft.vrork sta'ted 9-26-79 te compteted 10-19-79 lg
Date well driutng machlne moved. off of well I A-19-79 19
ft
Drillins Machlne Olnrator's Cerfffloatlon:. ThisMaterials constructed under dir
best andand
ion.
my
Date .1.1.:I......., $7.9..
in.
lSignedl
Dritling Machine OperatoCs License No.,/ets
was a drive shoe used? g Ves [,Wo Plugs ............ Slze: location -.-........- tt.
Did any strats. contaln unusable water? E Yes DllrNo
' -e of water? -. . _.d9Fl!f p_f strFta . _._-.._-
.bd of sealilg s_tfate off . ._., .- .. .. . -- - . - + .....
Was weII €ravel Dacked? l-l Yes 'lPf Slze of gravel:
Gravel placed from . ..----...-.....,;...-*-. ft, to ..........,..*_*-* ft,
Watcr Wetl Contractor's Certiltcatlon:
This well was drilled under my jurisdictiou and this reBort istrue to tJre b-est of m5r knowledge aad belief.
r.rameRS.F.I..1.S.-.ggffi-.-p.R.LLlL$S.
(Person, flm or corttolauon) (TsrDe or prtDt)
Address
lSignedl
Contractor's License No.oate -...L-1-:.7*7.9.....--...., rs.--...
From To
o 4
4 19
1q n
Srokerr brn- lsva aement v1
SerC- wlth nlav 4f)q'7'Pen nl nvcf nma q7
lrn- laws. hrnkpnr nnment ;1 qt
Bran ^ n'l a vst nn a e6 1i 7
Prrmi ne & sed { mpn t sr 1B?'20-3
Cnreo'l n.maraqf. c 9o,7 ,7)
Brokern 'l a wn.97D D77
)77 DEL
DOIL 70)
Dcn sll c^'?ew 1 a"va 7n.2 ?'',.}
lprl { mpn* <r & r.'l q rr ?tn 766
Gtqrr -lqrrq 26.6.7'lZ
Sed ^ 8o n'l orr 7'72
lzrq rr 'l q rrq vRlL ?ot
Perforated?
from
ftom -...-....-.-....-.--.- ft. to
to
wtth
(u8E ADITIIIoNAL SEEEIS rF NECESSA&Y)
:+=+.-:.-. ---.. --.4:-q+.::-:;r=.-- ---A*.. .-f
-sP.{60E6-lr9 -_
BIOTTC,F. TO VIA'TE,R WELL COI{'TRAC'TOR,
The orlglnal and first copy of this reportare to be filed with the
' $r',1.rnRo nssouRcEs DEPARTMENT,
SALEM, OREGON 9?310
wlthln 30 days lrom the dateof well completlon.
(1) OWNER:
NameMf. John Susacal5 I\rWr JJaIa ette-.Uend 0re oxt
(2) TYPE OF WORK (check):
New Well E Deepentng I Recon(titiontrnig I Abandon EIfd€scribe material and i! Item 12.
(3) TYPE OF WELL:
-tt , .--
WATER WELL BEPORT
STAIE OI. OBEGION
(Please type or ptlnt)
(Do rot wrlte s,bove tbls lltrc)
PAGT 2
State Well No.
- State Perrntt No.
(10) LOCATTON OF WELL:
c9u.nty , . Drlller's well number
w.M.
\
T.
tr Drlvenn Jetted trtr
(4) P$OPOSED USE (check):
_Domestlc fl _Industrial O Munlclqal I
Bearlng and distance from section or subdivlsloD corner
(11) WATEE LEVEL: Compteted we[.
Depttr at rlttich water was tirst found ,r
Static level _ ft.below lend surtace, Date
Arteslan prressure lb6. per squere lncb. Date
tr Bored D frrigatlon D Test WeU Other tr
(5) CASING INSTALLED: , rhreaded E
Diam, {rom ft, to .-,*._*.- ft,
l':-:
IVeIded E
Gage -,..-......,...,......
Gage ...-.-..........-.
Gage . *.........-.......-
(12)- WEIIL LOG:
Depth drilled ft. Depth of completed well
Diameter of w.e!l- below caslng _..-.*__...-..-..
(6) PEEFORATIONS:
Tx'pe of oerforator used
of in.
- Diam. -...--......^. SIot size Set trom
ft
Formatlon: Describe color, texture, gratn slze and structure ol materials;ahd show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated,uith at least one entry for each change ot formaflou.RsI'orG eaclr cbange lnposltlonol statlc watcr Level rnd indicate prlnclpal watcr-be8rlnf str&ta.
l[ATERIAL swL
Work started _ lO ComDleted lg'------
Date well drilllng machlne moved oft of rreU l9
" Diam. from .--.............-...-,..lt. to ---..---.._........ tt-
" Dlam. {rom ..,,,.......-...-..... lt. to *._.-.,.........", ft,
Pe=r{orated? El Yes Et No.
(8) WELL TESTS: il#l3ei3filttsigl"y"1t* revel is
a Yes No whom?
It.hrs.
wtih alter
tlow
Temperature of water Depth artesian -flow encountered ,_... _._- ft.
(9) CONSTBUCTTON:
I,Yell seal-Mate.Ilal used
.'ljuell _sealed firom land surface to ft.
_Di,ameter ot v/ell bore to bottom .Ot seal..'___.,_.-..-.......... in,
D-iameter of well bore below seal ...............-,_........,.. tn.
I{umbel of sacks of cement usedjn weU $eia1,...,.-_. ._.... sacks
$o.]ry- was cement grggt placed?
\r''s a drive shoe used? B yes E No ptugF _....--.... Slze: locafion -.......... fi.
Drilllng llflaohlne Operotor! Ce.rftfloatton:_, Tlil well was eonstructed under rny direct supervision.Materials used and infor_mation ieporGi iUove arJirue-t"-n0tbest knowledge and belief.
lSieDedl Date ......-...-.-.---, d9-.--(Dr[rhs Op€rator)
Drilling Machine Operator's License No.
Itratcr Well Contractor's Cerdflcallon:
This well was drilled wr$e1 my jqrlsdiction and this report istrue to the best of my knowledge-aid Ueliei.--
Name
trrom To
192 417
4rT 4?'F,
4zc tr\28
q28 qqt
qF.)tr6tr
65C 64tr,
56c 60R
5eB 74 L
77A 7qD z
t I rF UEIiI
contain Water?(Penon, llm or conreratlln)(TyDe or trrtnt)
off
of strata
of
Address
lSignedl (Water wetl Contactor)
Irom .......,....................,,.. ft. to.i*.,.,-.._............. ft.Contractor's Lieense No.
T
(usE aDDTTToNAL SEEETS rx' NEcEsslFy]
Date
sP.{865a-119
Groundwater & Environmental Consultants
tlarfi YinUGt lssociatos
69860 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, OR 97759 - 541-549-303O
June 13,2008
Steve Munson
Vulcan Power Company - Native Restoration Fund
345 SW Cyber Drive, Suite 103
Bend, OR 97702
Ref: Review of portions of the Thomburgh Final Master PlanApplication, Deschutes County
file numberM-07-2.
Dear Mr. Munson
I have reviewed two portions of the Thornburgh Final Master Plan Application. These are the
Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Addendum relating to Potential Impacts of
Ground Water Wthdrawals on Fish Habitat prepared byNewton Consultants (Newton, 2008)
and the Revised Well Indemnification Plan contained in Exhibit 3.
Backsround
The Thornburgh Resort development would use groundwater to supply all uses. These uses
include: irrigation of three golf courses,landscaping irrigation, maintenance of artificial lakes
and potable water. The annual volume of groundwater withdrawn from new wells would be
2,129 acre feet (a0 and of this amount 1,356 af must be mitigated for impacts to streamflow.
The basis for the mitigation requirement for new groundwater withdrawals is the established
principle that virtually all water pumped from the Deschutes Formation aquifer and consumed is
water that will not discharge to streams in the upper Deschutes River basin (Gannet and others,
2001, and Gannett and Lite, 2004).
In the summary and conclusions section of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, Ground-
Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon,the following conclusion is stated:
"Groundwater and surface water are, therefore, directly linked, and removal of ground
water will ultimately diminish streamflow." (Gannett and others, 2001).
The questions are where will the streamflow diminishment occur and what resources will be
impacted as a result of the Thornburgh development. To address the first question we used the
numerical groundwater flow model developed jointly by the USGS and Oregon Water Resources
Department (OWRD) and simply added to the model input the pumping of the six proposed
Thornburgh wells. Based on the model output the primary stream reaches with diminished flow
would be the Deschutes River from Odin Falls to the mouth of Whychus Creek and lower
Whychus Creek (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). ln these areas cold groundwater discharge from
springs and seeps is critical to bull trout and native redband trout habitat and unique riparian
I
ecology. The cold water of lower Whychus Creek is also critical to the successful re-introduction
of Chinook salmon and steelhead.
The Thornburgh developer proposes to mitigate its impact on streamflow with a combination of
transferring irrigation water rights on Deep Canyon Creek to instream flow rights, the purchase
of l00.7acres of water right from the McCabe Family Trust and the remainder from Central
Oregon Irrigation District (COID) water rights. The developer claims that their mitigation plan
will fully mitigate negative impacts to habitat and fishery resources.
Comments on Fish and Wildlife Mitieation Plan
The following are my comments on the Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan
Addendum relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Wthdrawals on Fish Habitat in the
Thornburgh Final Master Plan (FMP, 2008). The following comments are organized using the
headings in the above referenced document.
IL BACKGROUND (page 1)
The statement to the effect that the use of groundwater is expected to indirectly impact flows of
the Deschutes River is incorrect. The pumping of the Thomburgh wells will directly impact flow
of the Deschutes River. It has been well established that in the upper Deschutes Basin
groundwater that is withdrawn and consumed is groundwater that does not discharge to streams.
III. D. l. OWRD Mitigationfor Phase A
Big Falls Ranch Water Right (page 5)
No evidence is given to support the expectation that an acre of irrigation water right should be
converted at the rate of 1.8 acre feet of mitigation water. No evidence is given as to the volume
of irrigation water actually applied annually per acre for the 464.9 acres.
No evidence is given that the 464.9 acres of Big Falls Ranch irrigation water rights on Deep
Canyon Creek are valid water rights. No proof is given that all of the 464.9 acres have been
irrigated within the last five years (ORS 540.610). It is apparent in a June 2005 color aerial
photograph that significant portions of the acreage have not been irrigated (USGS, 2005). In
fact, some areas bordering pivots that are claimed as irrigated acres appear to have been fallow
for some time.
The claim that the initial 175 acres of irrigation water right transferred to instream for Phase A
will result in2.0l cfs from Deep Canyon creek is not supported with any data, evidence or
explanation. No data or evidence is given to substantiate what the flow volume of Deep Canyon
Creek actually is.
III. D. 2. OWRD Mitigationfor Phase B/Full Build-Out (page 6)
Again the validity of an additional 289.9 acres of Big Falls Ranch irrigation water rights on Deep
Canyon Creek is not substantiated. No evidence is given that all of these acres have been
irrigated within the last five years.
No evidence is given that the 100.7 acre McCabe water right is valid. The particular water right
is not identified.
2
No specifics are given on the COID mitigation water which is apparently based only on an
expectation of availability of water due to conversion of land to urban uses.
III, E. Summary of OWRD Mitigation Plan (page 6)
The claim that mitigation will result in 5.5 cfs of flow from Deep Canyon Creek during the
irrigation season is not supported with evidence. No evidence is given that the creek is actually
capable of a flow of 5.5 cfs. No evidence is given that the irrigation pump or pumps are capable
of pumping 5.5 cfs. It is possible that the Big Falls Ranch water rights exceed the capacity of the
creek.
The claim is made that the Big Falls Ranch mitigation water from Deep Canyon Creek will be
cool water. No evidence is given to support this claim. What is the water temperature of the
creek now and how does it vary seasonally and along its course?
IV. FISH HABITAT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY GROUND WATER USE @age 7)
It is implied that because the state requires mitigation there will be no impact to streamflow and
stream temperature due to the Thornburgh groundwater withdrawals. The state's mitigation
requirement is no assurance that this particular impact will be mitigated by this particular plan.
The mitigation plan is Thornburgh's plan, not the state's, and Thornburgh must present clear and
convincing evidence that their mitigation plan will actually mitigate their impacts on
streamflows, water temperature in the streams, fish and critical fish habitat. This evidence is not
given.
The impact to lower Whychus Creek cold water springs and seeps is dismissed in the mitigation
plan. Our groundwater modeling of the impacts of the Thornburgh withdrawals show that there
will be reduced discharge of cold groundwater to the lower reach of Whychus Creek (Yinger and
Strauss, 2008). We used the USGS-OWRD developed groundwater flow model with no
modifications other than the added stress of the Thomburgh groundwater withdrawals. No
evidence is given to support the Thornburgh position that the impacts will occur only on the
Deschutes River.
The modeled reduction in cold groundwater discharge to lower Whychus Creek is 106 af
annually. This reduction in cold spring water discharge is not a negligible impact. The ecology
of Whychus Creek is cold groundwater dependent.
The statement that "...NCI (Newton Consultants Inc.) determined the potential temperature
impacts attributable to the project (Thornburgh) are expected to be slight and below levels that
can be effectively measurable." is not supported with any evidence. On what basis did NCI
make this determination?
There is also some discussion of ODFW "Habitat Categories." The impacted reaches of the
Deschutes River and Whychus Creek should be considered Habitat Category I as defined in
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) administrative rule (OAR 635-415-0025).
The cold water springs and seeps are irreplaceable and essential for fish and wildlife and a
unique ecology. The ODFW's mitigation goal is no loss of habitat. It does not allow dismissal
of impact based on arguments that the impact will be negligible or un-measurable. Nor does
ODFW habitat mitigation policy specifically allow impact to occur in one area in exchange for
improvements in another area.
J
V C. Elimination of Existing Irrigation Pond (page 9)
The statement is made to the effect that Thornburgh will work with Big Falls Ranch to remove
the pond at the point of diversion (near the mouth of Deep Canyon Creek). Notes on Figures 3
and 4 of the mitigation plan state that a second pond located approximately 1,800 feet upstream
on Deep Canyon Creek will also be removed. However, the upstream pond is located on
property owned by Nolan Weigand. Will this property owner allow the pond to be removed? To
realize a lower temperature for the creek water both ponds must be removed.
V. E. Fundingfor Thermal Modeling (pagelO)
The mitigation plan characteizes the proposal to provide $10,000 for completion of a stream
temperature model for Whychus Creek as enhancement and part of its mitigation "package".
The completion of this model and its use provides no mitigation of the impacts the Thornburgh
development will have on reaches of the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The statement that "...potential for loss of habitat due to reduced surface water flows was
quantified in connection with the OWRD review of Thornburgh's application for a water right."
is not supported with any evidence. As pointed out earlier, just because OWRD rules say you
will fully mitigate consumptive use of groundwater does not mean this particular plan fully
mitigates Thornburgh's impacts.
Comments on Well ndemnification PIan
The following are my comments on the Revised Well Indemnification Plan,Exhibit 3 of the
Thornburgh Final Master Plan application.
The Probabitity of Interference is High
In the second paragraph of the introduction of the indemnification plan, statements are made that
based on Newton Consultants original hydrology report for Thornburgh (Newton, 2005) and
OWRD water rights application there will no interference with existing wells. Newton's original
hydrology report failed to investigate the history of wells in the vicinity of the proposed
development. It is standard practice when evaluating the impact of new large production wells to
investigate the history of existing wells in the vicinity of the proposed wells. In our evaluation of
the impacts of the Thornburgh development on water resources we did this basic research
(Yinger and Strauss, 2008). We found that in the area of the Eagle Crest Resort, located just east
of the proposed development, that there are 13 wells that have been deepened between 2001 and
2007 . The documented water level decline in these wells has been as great as 42 feet. lt is
reasonable to conclude that the pumping of the large production wells at Eagle Crest has drawn
down water levels in wells in the vicinity of this resort. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that
the pumping of the six Thomburgh wells will only accelerate the decline of water levels in
existing wells in the area and expand the area of water level decline associated with the Eagle
Crest Resort.
Our modeling of water levels in response to the pumping of the Thornburgh wells reveals that
the pumping of deep Thornburgh wells (model layer 7) will cause declines in water levels of
much shallower wells (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). Newton's statement ". ..that because of
aquifer characteristics, depth, and location of Thornburgh's proposed wells, the new groundwater
4
use was not expected to cause interference with other existing ground water uses (wells)" is not
supported by the facts. It is clear that the effects of the pumping of deep wells are not isolated
from existing shallower wells.
Radius of Well Indemnification
No justification is given to support a two-mile radius limit to indemniff existing wells from
impact due the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. The impacted area is certain not to be circular.
Based on the impact of the Eagle Crest wells and low permeability of the core of the Cline Buttes
rhyolite dome the impacted area will likely be elongated in the north-south direction (Yinger and
Strauss, 2003). The radius should be increased to 3 miles to be conservatively protective.
The plan does not define from where the radius of indemnification will be measured. Each new
Thornburgh well should be at the center of a 3-mile radius of indemnification.
Duration of Indemnification Agreements
The five year duration of the indemnification agreements is too short. The USGS simulations
for pumping wells in the Redmond area indicate that most of the impact on water levels occurs 7
to 10 years after the start of pumping (Gannett and Lite,2004). The duration of the
indemnification agreements should extend for ten years past the completion of the development.
Conclusions
I have pointed out that there are numerous statements and conclusions in the Thornburgh fish and
wildlife mitigation plan addendum that are not supported with evidence. The plan cites no
references. The claim that this particular fish and wildlife mitigation plan completely mitigates
negative impacts to these resources is not credible.
The well indemnification plan has serious shortcomings
Sincerely,
MarkYingeq R.G.
Hydrogeologist
Attachment: Summary Table Diminished Streamflow, Model Results for Scenario I and
Scenario 2, andmap of reaches
References:
Gannett, Marshall and others, 2001, Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin,
Ore gon, USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 00 - 41 62.
5
Gannett, Marshall and Lite, Kenneth, 2004, Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4195.
Newton, David, 2005, Hydrology Report Water Supply Development Feasibility Proposed
Thornburgh Resort, Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resorts, LLC.
Newton, David, 2008, Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildlife Mitigation PlanAddendum Relating
to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat, Newton Consultants, Inc. in
Thomburgh Final Master Plan.
Strauss, Laura, June 6,2008, personal communications.
Watershed Sciences, 2007, Deschutes River, Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek Temperature
Modeling, for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Yinger, Mark and Strauss,Larra,2008, A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources
Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, for Steve Munson and Sandy Lonsdale,
Native Restoration Fund, Vulcan Power Co.
6
Diminished $treamfloryv, cfsas percent oftotal pumping9%55o/o64o/o99.7o/oScenario 20.2991.7802.0793.240as percent oftotal pumping210h51%72o/o95.1o/oScenario I0.6811.6482.3293.090ReachBend to River Mile 149Odin Falls to Whychus Creek and Lower Whychus GreeCombined for two reachesTotal diminished streamflow for stream systemSummary of Diminished Streamflow, Model Results for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2Notes:l) Total pumping is 3.25 cfs for both ScenariosNORTH\trESTIand & Wbter, rNc.d lprojects\Thornburg h\...N LWmodelFilesForl nPut..\Output\Tables\whychus Creek StreamReduction.xlsCase Study: ThornburghResortWater Resources lmpact Evaluationas percent oftstal purfiping4%1%5%99.7o/oScenario 20.1450.0210.1663.24as percsnt oftotal pumpinE4%1o/o5o/o95.1o/oScenario I0.1430.0210.1643.09ReaehLower Whvchus CreekUpper Whvchus GreekWhvchus CreekTotatrdiminished streamflow for stream syslemConsulting in Hydrogeology
Scena,rewsolver.mxdJst,QG_$Irs*_!-x'\- -' f'-\l-aurvocoo='5oo3Jt-rr-JLr:. 3. F;.GlOa5II NYhP";96gi's ia!"f; itH Bstiq=iiEFsgqr<5=sl-Ef5l$ae e ;go o Y*N) A -^U,rt:-e e 3El o .rf=o N L4(/" F hClltU)6'0)o-a0)oo=o€.tAg "l 3Fr ll IiF.li5i Nz P@:JO='6*ogg.o!oel€rp-ff<5mz6S-r\-z@Eoo+6'ovo0)o5o(Dl;.- cna(o=d5;Hsl o-€(D=U'
Groundwater & Environmental Consultants
illarI Yinger IssoGiatGs
69860 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, OR 97759 - 541-549-3030
July 23,2008
Steve Munson
Vulcan Power Company - Native Restoration Fund
345 SW Cyber Drive, Suite 103
Bend, OR 97702
Ref: Thornburgh Resort - rebuttal and comment in response to applicants written and oral
testimony submitted to Anne Corcoran Briggs, Deschutes County Hearings Offrcer, on July 15,
2008.
Dear Mr. Munson:
The following are my responses to written and oral testimony given to Anne Corcoran Briggs,
the hearings officer for the Thornburgh Master Plan proceedings, presented by the applicant's
representatives on July 15,2008.
Thornburgh Memo, Exhibit G
The Thornburgh memo is incorrect when it states that we "attempts(ed) to run the USGS model".
We did run the model using an installation of the model that was verified to be operating
correctly on our computer. The only change to the USGS groundwater flow model was to add
the Thornburgh wells and their pumping rate. We also used a newer numerical solver to improve
computing efficiency.
The Thomburgh memo also incorrectly characterizes our use of the USGS groundwater flow
model as inadequate or inappropriate to "determine site specific impacts". The model is simply
used to evaluate the impact of the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. The modeling results show
both near and distant effects on groundwater levels and discharges to streams. The model was
calibrated by the USGS and model simulation runs done by the USGS closely fit observed data
in the area most significantly impacted by the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. Our use of the
model is appropriate. The USGS demonstrated the usefulness of the model by using it to
evaluate the impact of a hypothetical well near Redmond on groundwater discharge to the
Deschutes River (Gannett and Lite, 2004).
The Thornburgh memo also characterizes our results as being in conflict with OWRD's
determination of the zone of impact to be the general zone. There is no conflict here at all. It is
simply that our approach used the peer reviewed and calibrated flow model to produce a much
more detailed evaluation of where the impact of Thornburgh's groundwater pumping will occur.
OWRD's evaluation (OWRD, 2005) merely states that the Thomburgh wells will withdraw water
from the Deschutes Formation and that groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River 5.8 to 8
miles north of the proposed resort. Thornburgh misused this simple description to justiS
ignoring impacts to Whychus Creek and focus mitigation only on the Deschutes River.
Kyle Gorman, OWRD's South Central Region Manager, in his oral testimony on July 15, 2008
stated:
"Our department, if we ran the model, we wouldn't find that the impacts would be in the
Sandy River. We'd find that they'd (impact) be in the exact same place that Yinger
found."
If OWRD had run the model to evaluate the impact of the pumping of the Thornburgh wells they
would have found that there are impacts to Whychus Creek, just as we have.
By repeated reference to OWRD's use of "site specific" information Thornburgh further attempts
to show a conflict between our evaluation and OWRD's evaluation where there is none. The site
specific information used by both Mark Yinger Associates and OWRD is the same. We both
used the same well locations and pumping rates provided by the applicant in their water right
application.
On page nine the Thornburgh memo admits that using the USGS model can yield more site-
specific information concerning impacts. I agree. The memo then suggests that because our data
inputs and results are not peer reviewed our results cannot be relied on. This is unfounded.
Again, the data input for our USGS model runs was the well locations and pumpingrate
specified by the applicant in its water right application. The USGS model is peer reviewed
therefore; there is no point in a peer review of the modeling results. Has the work of the
applicant's consultants been peer reviewed? It has not been. Thornburgh's insistence on peer
review of our work by extension must also apply to the work of the applicant's consultants.
I disagree with the consumptive water volume of 1,356 acre feet per year for several reasons:
1. The intent of the mitigation is to protect fish habitat from impact by this particular
project. The USGS groundwater flow model is the best method to define where that
impact will occur. Mitigation must be targeted to these areas and address both water
quantity and quality; the cold groundwater crucial to fish in the impacted reaches. It is
not sufficient protection of the habitat in the impacted stream reaches to simply return
water back into the surface water system anywhere. It is unlikely that the potentially
unconsumed water will actually end up discharging to the streams where it would have if
it had not been pumped in the first place. The potentially unconsumed water cannot be
presumed to mitigate the impact resulting from the withdrawal of groundwater by this
particular project on streamflow and fish habitat. This is one reason we used the fuIl
annual volume specified by the applicant in their water right application for our
gtoundwater modeling.
2. The applicant's assumptions concerning consumptive use are not supported. The
claim that standard irrigation is 60% consumed and 40o/o recharges the aquifer would
only be reasonable if flood irrigation were used, which will not be the case. In the USGS
groundwater hydrology report for the upper Deschutes Basin, modern sprinkler irrigation
is assumed to result in no recharge (Gannett and others, 2001). This is based on a review
2
of irrigation practices in the basin. The following statement is made in the USGS
hydrology report:
"ln areas of sprinkler irrigation with efficiencies of 94 percent, only 6 percent of
applied water is lost (mostly to evaporation and wind drift), and no water is
assumed to be lost to deep percolation frecharge]."
The applicant's use of the consumptive/non-consumptive ratio of 400/o/600/o for standard
irrigation is based on an OWRD study that compared the water meter totals to outfalls of
sewage treatment plants. The difference between water metered to customers and sewage
treatment plant outfall flow is assumed to be the amount of water consumed. It is
inappropriate to apply this reasoning to modern irrigation practices.
Early in our study we did an informal poll of golf courses managers in the area. The
universal response of greenskeepers and agronomist, was that 100% percent of the water
applied to the golf course is consumed by the turf and direct evaporation, leaving none to
recharge groundwater.
The claim that only 40Yo of the 971 acre feet for quasi-municipal use is consumed is not
supportable. The portion of this water that is not directly consumed will end up in the
resort's sewage system which is designed to evaporate the waste water to prevent it from
potentially impacting groundwater quality. This is a requirement of the resorts waste
water treatment permit issued by the DEQ. In Newton Consultant's July 15, 2008,
response letter the following statement is made:
"Much of the water used for domestic, municipal and quasi-municipal purposes
retums to ground water via septic systems and sewage treatment systems, and
through seepage from landscape irrigation."
This is contrary to the conditions of the DEQ issued permit for waste water treatment and
the design of the sewage treatment system.
If we had assumed, for the purpose of our gtoundwater modeling, that90o/o of the pumped water
was consumed and 10olo recharged groundwater it would not have had a substantial impact on
our modeling results. The use of a mitigation obligation of 1,356 acre feet is not realistic and
will result in unmitigated impacts to streams and fish habitat. The mitigation obligation should
be at least 1,916 acre feet.
On page 10 the Thornburgh memo attempts to related their determination of consumptive use
with the intended use of the USGS model. The determination of consumptive use has nothing to
do with the USGS model. In fact, their determination of consumptive use ignores pertinent
findings in the USGS Deschutes Basin hydrology study (Gannet and others, 2001), such as the
rate ofrecharge attributed to different irrigation practices.
On page l1 the Thornburgh memo states to the effect that using the Big Falls Ranch water will
mitigate impacts to Whychus Creek. The use of Big Falls Ranch water will not mitigate impacts
to Whychus Creek. Whychus Creek is not down stream of Deep Canyon Creek. The memo
goes on to imply that ODFW agrees that Big Falls Ranch water will mitigate impacts to
J
Whychus Creek. In their June 13, 2008, letter ODFW did not say that Big Falls Ranch water
will mitigate impact to Whychus Creek (ODFW letter attached).
The Thornburgh memo is correct, that we did not quantiff temperature impacts to streams.
However, the applicant's consultants have quantitatively confirmed that there would be stream
temperature increases. The statement that Tetra Tech's analysis indicates that temperature impact
to Whychus Creek is "statistically insignificant" is not correct. No statistical analysis was done
by Tetra-Tech.
Tetra Tech Memo of July 212008
The stated purpose of the Tetra Tech memo of July 2,2008 is to review Thomburgh's mitigation
plan assuming that our conclusions that there will be impacts to the Deschutes River and
Whychus Creek are correct. They then go on to describe at length mitigation flows to address
impacts to the Deschutes River. These impacts would result in a stream temperature increase in a
reach of the Deschutes River that includes listed bull trout habitat. However, they ignore
Whychus Creek because the Thornburgh mitigation plan provides no mitigation forWhychus
Creek. The abandonment of three domestic wells on the Thornburgh property and providing
funds for thermal modeling of Whychus Creek does not mitigate the impacts that this particular
project will have on Whychus Creek.
Tetra Tech Memo of July 8,2008
On page one of Tetra Tech's memo of July 8, 2008, under "Similarities of the Two
Methodologies" the statement that both we and Tetra-Tech based analysis on the Simulation of
Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes basin, Oregon prepared by the USGS
(Gannett and Lite, 2004) is misleading. Tetra Tech has not run the groundwater flow model,
which is presented in USGS report, to evaluate the impacts of the pumping Thornburgh wells.
Our analysis used the USGS model and is much more thorough and detailed.
On page 4 in the third bulleted item the statement is made that their calculations are conservative
because if local lithology were considered the "direction proportional connection between
groundwater pumping and stream flow" would become less. That is not supported by any
significant discussion of geology either in this memo or early work by Tetra Tech. The fact is
that they have not used the best analytical tool available which is the USGS groundwater flow
model, which accounts for complex heterogeneous geology through defining 171 zones of
hydraulic conductivity and model calibration.
At the beginning of the memo Tetra Tech says that they based their analysis on the USGS
modeling report (Gannet and Lite, 2004) and then on page 5 in the first bulleted item under
"Comments Regarding the Yinger and NWLW, Inc. Methodology'' they attempt to dismiss the
use of the USGS model. This is a contradiction. They present the same argument they presented
in their May 2008 evaluation (Tetra Tech, May 2008). Their argument is simply an excuse for
not using the groundwater flow model themselves.
4
The use of the USGS groundwater flow model to evaluate the impacts of Thornburgh pumping is
appropriate and the best method for the following reasons:
l. The USGS groundwater flow model for the upper Deschutes River Basin is a
calibrated model, peer reviewed and published. Our input to the model consisted of only
well locations and pumping rate specified in the applicant's water right application.
2. The USGS groundwater flow model utilizes a large body of observed data. This data
includes: geologic mapping, boring logs, well logs, geophysical logs, groundwater levels
from observation wells, private wells and public wells, well and aquifer tests,
precipitation, streamflow, groundwater seepage, evapotranspiration and pumpage. The
numerical model is the best method to synthesize all of this data and a conceptual model
in order to predict the behavior of a complex natural system in response to new stress
such as the pumping of wells.
3. The USGS groundwater flow model does account for complex heterogeneous geology
through defining many zones of hydraulic conductivity within each model layer and
through the calibration of the model. The eight layers of the model are divided into a
total of 171 zones based on hydraulic conductivity. To demonstrate the use of the model
the USGS used it to simulate the impact on streamflow for a hypothetical well in the
Redmond area (Gannett and Lite,2004).
4. In the area of interest, the groundwater discharge to streams simulated by the model
closely matches measured or estimated discharge values, which are based on data from
seepage runs, gauging stations and streamflow measurements (Gannett and Lite, 2004).
The fit between simulated and measured or estimated discharge of groundwater is close
for the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and the gauge near Culver.
The first bulleted item on page 6, is not correct in saying that we did not use "site-specific
pumping scenarios for the proposed water supply wells because it is not applicable to apply the
USGS model .... to localized impacts from pumping." First, we used the used well locations and
pumping rates specified by the applicant in their water right application. This is the same site
specific data used by OWRD in their analysis contained in the Public Interest Review for Ground
WaterApplications (OWRD,2005). Second, it is applicable to use the USGS model to evaluate
the impact of the proposed pumping. The modeling results show both near and distant impacts
to groundwater level and discharges to streams. Again, the authors of the USGS groundwater
flow model chose to demonstrate its usefulness by modeling the impacts on streamflow for a
hypothetical well in the Redmond area.
The second bulleted item on page 6 is correct in that we did not quantify stream temperature
changes. We did predict temperature changes and Tetra Tech's calculations appear to confirm
our prediction. I find it hard to understand how they can claim here that an increase in water
temperature"may be,valid" when in fact they show that there will be an increase in temperature
by their own calculations.
I addressed the issue raised in the third and fourth bulleted items on page 6 regarding
consumptive use above. Our use of the actual annual pumping rate is justified. For mitigation to
5
be effective it must be targeted at the areas impacted by the pumping. Returning water anywhere
in the hydrologic system will not mitigate the impacts of this particular groundwater withdrawal.
The last bulleted item, page 6, cites some of the good reasons to use the USGS calibrated
groundwater flow model to evaluate the impact of the pumping of the proposed Thornburgh
wells. We use site specific data based on the information contained in the applicant's water right
application. The results of the modeling show both local and distant impacts on groundwater
level and gtoundwater discharges to streams.
The following addresses only some of the issues I have with the table attached to Tetra Tech's
memo:
l. The first item in the summary table deals with our use of the USGS groundwater flow
model. It is inappropriate to complain that it is difficult to evaluate our modeling results.
All the information that is needed to exactly duplicate our modeling results are contained
in our report (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). Tetra Tech can acquire the groundwater model
from the USGS and run it themselves.
To raise the issue of a natural hydrograph is simply a pointless obfuscation. The flow
conditions on the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek have not been remotely
near a natural hydrograph for many decades.
2. Onpage 38 of our report we do have a typo error. The instantaneous pumping rate
given as9.26 cfs should have been 9.28 cfs. Everywhere else in the report the value of
9.28 cfs is given. This typo has no impact on our modeling results.
3. Tetra Tech questions our use of the figure of 31.2 cfs. The USGS report does not
contain the figure of 31.2 cfs for total pumpage used in the USGS steady state model
(Gannett and Lite, 2004). However, the figure of 3l cfs is given in Table 5 of the USGS
report. The values in this table are apparently rounded to whole numbers. The exact
figure of 3I.2 cfs comes from the well input file of the steady state groundwater flow
model. The rest of Tetra Tech's discussion related to 3I .2 cfs is confused and pointless.
Again, if they disagree with our modeling results they can acquire the model from the
USGS and run it themselves.
Tetra Tech Memo of July 14,2008
Tetra Tech's July 14,2008 memo addresses the impacts to lower Whychus Creek.
On page 2, the first bulleted item is not correct when it states that the flow from Alder Springs is
100 cfs. The source of their data cannot be checked as it is not identified adequately. To the
point, the flow from Alder Springs is much less. In Table I of Deschutes River, Wychus Creek,
and Tumalo Creek Temperature Modeling prepared by Watershed Sciences (2008) for the DEQ
the value given for the flow from Alder Springs is 8.7 cfs on July 26,2000. The 100 cfs volume
is approximately the total flow gain on Whychus Creek between Alder Springs and the mouth of
the creek.
6
If the reduction of groundwater discharge, at 0.15 cfs, as indicated by our use of the USGS
groundwater flow model occurs at Alder Springs there will be a significant increase in the
temperature of Whychus Creek. Alder Springs is located at the top of the spring system and
significantly lowers the temperature of lower Whychus Creek. Using the 0.15 cfs reduction in
cold groundwater discharge and Tetra Tech's thermal mass balance approach the increase in
temperature of Whychus Creek at Alder Springs would be 0.07" C. This is based on a pre-
pumping Alder Springs flow of 8.7 cfs at a temperature of 11" C and a Whychus Creek flow of
10.85 cfs above the spring at a temperature of 26.7" C (Watershed Sciences, 2008). The 0.07" C
increase in the temperature of Whychus Creek at Alder Springs as a result of the pumping of the
Thornburgh wells is much greater than the "less than 0.01" value calculated by Tetra Tech. This
is due to the error in the first bulleted item discussed above. The Thornburgh mitigation plan
provides no mitigation for Whychus Creek.
The general form of the equation used to calculate the temperature resulting from the mixing of
two flows of water is,
Tr"rurltirg
Tnr"o- i
Qstrean I
T*n I
Qrn,o. I
Stream temperature after mixing
Stream temperature
Stream flow rate
Inflowing water temperature
Inflow rate.
Newton Consultants,Inc July 15,2008 Response Letter
The statement in the bulleted item on bottom of page 2 of the Newton Consultants letter says that
'omuch of the water for domestic, municipal and quasi-municipal purposes returns to ground
water via septic systems and sewage treatment systems, and through seepage from landscape
irrigation". This is not correct, the DEQ permit for waste treatment requires that waste water be
surface applied during the irrigation season and stored in lined lagoons during the non-irrigation
season. The intent of the permit and treatment system is to prevent waste water from recharging
groundwater and impacting water quality. This is significant because a large portion of the
annual 971 acre feet of groundwater withdrawn for quasi-municipal use will end up in the
sewage treatment system and thus not recharging groundwater. The consequence is that the
proposed mitigation will not fully mitigate impacts to streamflows and fish habitat.
Cumulative Impact
Anne Corcoran Briggs, the hearings officer, asked the following question in her memo date July
7,2008.
How do I evaluate the broader impacts of the development ascribed to the proposal? For
example, the opponents argue that the cumulative impacts must be considered in the wildlife
7
analysis, but do not explain how those impacts can be quantified against the proposed
mitigation.
The impacts of the Thornburgh resort groundwater withdrawal on the middle Deschutes River
and Whychus Creek should be considered in the context of whatever other groundwater permits
have been issued but not yet fully developed and the location of their proposed mitigation. The
rivers and creeks have not yet seen these impacts, but will. The applicant could determine the
relevant groundwater withdrawal volumes from OWRD records and then run the USGS model.
Additionally, the impacts of the Thornburgh resort development on streams, fish and wildlife
should be considered in the context of future developments that will also depend on gtoundwater
withdrawals. There are proposed destination resorts in various stages of planning that would
likely also impact the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. These include the following:
o Ponderosa Land & Cattle Company on Green Ridge, 2,350 homes, two golf courses, 150
overnight accommodations, water right 7,550 af, 10.4 cfs
o Aspen Lakes expansion as a destination resort
. SMine Forest development of potentially 1,000 homes and a golf course
o Thornburgh II potentially needing an additional2,100 af, 2.9 cfs
The cumulative impact of these developments will likely have significant impacts on streamflow
and temperature. Groundwater pumping scenarios for these developments could be modeled
using the USGS groundwater flow model to evaluate the cumulative impact to streamflow and
water temperature.
Given that it will take 20 to 30 years for the impact of the Thornburgh groundwater pumping to
be fully realized, it is critical that the cumulative impact of this particular groundwater use and
future groundwater uses be critically evaluated. The failure to mitigate the impact of each new
groundwater withdrawal fully will add up to substantial loss of fish and wildlife resources. It
would be difficult and costly to recover the lost resources.
Sincerely,
MarkYinger, R.G.
Hydrogeologist
Attachments:
ODWF letter dated June 13, 2008
8
References:
Gannett, Marshall and others, 2001, Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin,
Oregon, USGS Water-Resources lnvestigation Report 00-4 | 62.
Gannett, Marshall and Lite, Kenneth, 2004, Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the
Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4195.
OWRD, 2005, Public Interest Review For Ground WaterApplication, prepared by Kenneth Lite
for the application G-16385.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc., May 2008, Evaluation of the Proposed Thornburgh Resort Project Impact on
Hydrology and Fish Habitat, prepared for Thornburgh Resort Co. LLC.
Watershed Sciences and MaxDepth Aquatics, 2008, Deschutes River, Whychus Creek and
Tumalo Creek Temperature Modeling, prepared for the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
Yinger, Mark and Strauss,La'ura,2008, A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources
Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, for Steve Munson and Sandy Lonsdale,
Native Restoration Fund, Vulcan Power Co.
9