The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-403-Minutes for Meeting April 10,2001 Recorded 4/27/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 403 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *CJ2001-403 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/24/2001 10:40:29 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Apr. 27, 2001; 2:40 p.m. Public Hearing (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 169 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEYRUNCHED MAY '3 2001 —' C Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke Mike DaIV DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001 j.,. r10 f - .`.V N.) Present at the Public Hearing were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis;Lu and Mike Daly. Also present were Paul Blikstad, Kevin Harrison, Roger Everett and George Read, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Legal Counsel; representatives of the media; and approximately 85 citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to take oral and written testimony from the public on a decision to be made by them on the L UBA Remand of Eagle Crest III Conceptual Master Plan. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has remanded the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision on the application 9CU-99-85) by Eagle Crest, Inc., for a conceptual master plan (CMP) for Phase III of Eagle Crest, on an appeal submitted by appellants Jean E. Shrader, Richard L. Shrader, Timothy L. Benesh and Rebecca M. Benesh (LUBA No. 99-047). The remand was issued based on the lack of proper notice to property owners potentially affected by the development. The remand hearing is to be conducted before the Board of County Commissioners at this time. Commissioner De Wolf read an opening statement, giving an overview of the purpose of the public hearing and some background on the issue to date. Minutes of Public Hearing Eagle Crest III Expansion Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 66 Pages Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: This is a public hearing on a conditional use application by Eagle Crest, Inc. for a conceptual master plan for Phase III of Eagle Crest Resort. The applicant has requested approval of a 480 -acre expansion of the existing resort on lands zoned exclusive farm use, Sisters -Cloverdale sub -zone, with a destination resort combining zone. The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval that is being sought. The standards applicable to the application are listed in the overhead display. (He referred to an overhead projection listing the applicable criteria for application) Applicable Procedures. The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing, also listed on the overhead. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations that any person believes apply to the decision. Failure on the part of the any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal at the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. The Order of Presentation. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. Deschutes County staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues before the Board. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony into evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. After both proponents and opponents have made a presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the Chair - that would be me - may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses by anyone in the audience will not be allowed. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: We are fairly free -form here, and we may interrupt people on either side to ask questions to get clarification or what have you. However, during someone's testimony, no one in the audience will be allowed to chime in or rebut. We try to treat everybody fairly and want to have an even playing field here. If a person wishes a question to be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct those questions to the Chair after being recognized. If you really feel you need to ask a question at that time, let me know by raising your hand. The Chair is free to decide whether to ask such questions of the witnesses. Pre -Hearing Contacts. I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including me, has had any pre - hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of those pre -hearing contacts so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts, and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? LUKE: I have received four written communications that I have shared with staff, and they should be included in the record. They returned two to me that they say are already in the record, and they are checking on the other two. MIMS I received one e-mail today from a Pam Lippincott stating her concerns over this issue. That's the only thing I've gotten. I will provide staff with a copy of it. LUKE: Does staff have a copy of a letter from Environmental Health? There was a letter that was sent to one of the neighbors in Eagle Crest, with a copy to the Board. BLIKSTAD: We will make sure one is included. DEWOLF: I have not received any e-mail communication over the past few days; if I had, I would have forwarded it on to Paul Blikstad. Any letters I've received were copied and sent to Community Development. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex -parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal? Ex -parte means any contact that has taken place with either supporters or opponents relative to this particular application. LUKE: None. DALY: None. DEWOLF: I don't believe that I have, either. Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Does anyone have anything that they would like to rebut, or anything that you feel we might not have remembered that someone has had communication with us about? (There was no response from the audience.) DEWOLF: Not seeing any, I'll move on. Challenges of Bias, Pre judgment or Personal Interest. Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, pre judgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by fact. I will accept any challenges now. This is like that point in a wedding where they say, if there's anyone who thinks these people should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace. (There was no response from the audience) Not seeing any challenges, I will skip the next paragraph and will proceed with a statement that I would like to read. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: The one thing that we require in any hearing of land use issues or otherwise is that everyone will conduct himself or herself in a respectful manner. Anyone who makes any sort of personal attack on anyone else, including the Board, County staff, the applicants or the opponents, will be cut off from further oral testimony today, and will be limited to submitting written testimony. We will leave the record open at the end of tonight's proceedings for written testimony and response to today's testimony. We will leave the record open for fourteen days, until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001. The applicant will then be given seven days, until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, to respond. These opportunities are allowed according to state law. The Board will then set a date for its decision at that time, based on the amount of additional material that has been submitted and what needs to be gone through. The main thing I want to say is that there are a lot of people here tonight, and there are a lot of strong feelings on these issues. We all live in this community together, and I would hope that we all conduct ourselves in a respectful manner toward each other. With that, we will begin with a staff report. I'm not sure that this was included, but depending on how many people are here to testify as opposed to just listening to and witnessing what is going on, we do reserve the right to limit the amount of time that people have for giving oral testimony. We ask that if someone has said what you believe on this issue, if you want to give testimony that you agree, we don't need to hear the same thing over and over. Feel free to submit whatever you want into the written record. My hope is that we will all be able to have dinner tonight before midnight. We'll also be limiting opening testimony. Our goal here is to treat everybody fairly. If you don't get a chance to give oral testimony, you can write whatever you want and we will read every bit of it. It's our job. (Paul Blikstad left the overhead projector on during his staff report for reference purposes) BLIKSTAD: Before the Board today is a public hearing on the conditional use permit application submitted by Eagle Crest, Inc. for a conceptual master plan (CMP) for Phase III of Eagle Crest Resort. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 BLIKSTAD: This particular phase is a 480 -acre expansion to the existing resort. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (in the future referred to as LUBA) has remanded the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's approval of Application CU -99-85 by Eagle Crest for the conceptual master plan (also known as CMP) for Phase III of Eagle Crest. This was following an appeal submitted by appellants Jean and Richard Shrader and Timothy and Rebecca Benesh, known as LUBA No. 99-047. The remand by LUBA was issued based on the lack of proper notice to property owners potentially affected by the development. The remand order by LUBA did not contain, nor did it address, any other issues with respect to the proposed resort expansion. The only issue before LUBA was whether proper notice was given for the resort expansion and that application. The conceptual master plan application is the first step in attaining approval for either a new destination resort or, in the case of Eagle Crest, for Phase III of that project. The second step in the review phase for the resort is what we call final master plan review. If final master plan approval is granted, the projects within the resort itself must be reviewed through either what we call site plan or subdivision applications. Eagle Crest submitted the application for CMP approval on July 2, 1999. The public hearing on the application was held on September 14, 1999, with the written record left open by the Hearings Officer until October 19, 1999. The Hearings Officer issued a written decision approving the CMP on December 2, 1999, listing twenty-four conditions of approval. At that point, Eagle Crest submitted an application for a request for reconsideration of the Hearings Officer's decision on conditions number 6, 7, 85, 13, 14, 17 and 18. The Hearings Officer issued her written decision on the reconsideration request on January 6, 2000, where she granted the applicant's request for amending conditions number 6, 7, 8 and 13; and denying the applicant's request to amend conditions 14, 17 and 18. The Hearings Officer's decision was not appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. However, the appellants appealed the Hearings Officer's approval to LUBA, which indeed remanded the application back to the County. The County determined that the proper hearings body in this instance, in the remand, would be the Board of County Commissioners. That is why we are here today. I did want to point out, and I believe the Board is aware of, an article in the Bend Bulleting newspaper on Friday, April 6, dealing with the possibility of septic system problems at the resort. Staff believes the applicant is proposing to and actually needs to address this issue for the Board tonight. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 BLIKSTAD: Staff believes that the ability of Eagle Crest to adequately handle the sewage treatment at the resort is a critically important aspect to both the ongoing development in the existing resort as well as the proposed Phase III expansion. The criteria for CMP approval lists sewage disposal under Section 18.113.050 - requirements for a conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications - and Section 18.113.070, which are the approval criteria. Staff did provide to the Board copies of both of the Hearings Officer's decisions - the original decision and the reconsideration decision. Again, all information is available for persons at this hearing to review tonight. I did want to mention that the map that was sent out with the notice was a map that was produced by the County through its Geographic Information System department. It was not a map produced by the applicant. The darker shaded areas on that map are BLM (Bureau of Land Management) properties that the County highlighted to show areas that might be used for the resort expansion, mainly in the form of access roads for the resort. It is our recommendation, based on all that has transpired with this application and the Phase III resort expansion, that the Board approve this, assuming that, in this instance, the septic problems that were alluded to in the newspaper can be sufficiently addressed. This concludes my staff report. Nancy Craven, attorney for the applicants, then spoke. She estimated she would need from one-half hour to 45 minutes for her opening presentation. NANCY CRAVEN: I will be presenting the application today with a few other members of the Eagle Crest group. I'm joined here today with individuals from Eagle Crest: Jerry Andres, CEO; Bill Lyche; and Alan Van Vliet, Eagle Crest Construction & Development and Cline Butte Utility Company; also, Tom Walker of W & H Pacific; and Julie Kuhn, Kittleson & Associates; and we have some additional material form Kerrie Stanlee & Associates, a noise consultant that worked with Eagle Crest with regard to the project. I appreciate the Chairman's comments at the beginning, and do hope that the Board accepts only relevant evidence with regard to the approval standards. Some of the materials posted around the room, in my judgment are not relevant to the approval criteria, and I hope that the Board keeps that in mind with regard to their deliberations. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 (The display boards referred to by Ms. Craven were set up around the meeting room prior to the beginning of the hearing by appellant Richard Shrader.) DEWOLF: There may be testimony that is not specifically relevant to the criteria, but as we read the material we will definitely keep that in mind. CRAVEN: Let me start off by saying that this application has somewhat of an extended history. We have already had one approval from the County for what we'll refer to as the CMP; we have also had an FMP nal master plan) approval. Because of a notice issue that LUBA determined, we are now seeking a CMP approval from you again. There are a variety of procedural issues associated with that. Some of them relate to the County jurisdiction and BLM federal jurisdiction with regard to the road. There are also some rather recent DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) issues regarding the sewer system, and we intend to address all of those directly tonight. This property was mapped for destination resort development in 1992. It has been eligible for destination resort development since that time. It consists of 480 acres surrounded by BLM land. I want to make sure that the members of the audience as well as the Board realize that the notice that went out from the County was extensive, well beyond what was required by LUBA. What the County staff did in a very conservative fashion, and perhaps rightly so, was to include notice to 750 feet around all of the BLM parcels that surround property that will have the resort itself on it. So much of the land that was shaded in gray on the map in the notice will have no development on it. What only will be included in that area are the access roads between Eagle Crest II and Eagle Crest III, and from Eagle Crest III up to the highway. We will be going through that in some detail, but obviously there is more interest today than there was in the previous CMP hearing, and I want to make certain that people in the audience are aware that there is no development proposed in the BLM land surrounding the Eagle Crest property. DEWOLF: I would assume that none of that land is mapped for destination resort uses. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: The County excluded all public lands from that. The CMP process establishes the framework for obtaining destination resort approval. It's the first step in getting a destination resort approved. We obtained destination resort CMP approval for this property with twenty-four conditions imposed by the Hearings Officer. We then obtained final master plan approval by resolving, addressing and submitting to you documentation necessary to address those twenty-four conditions. Given the decision by LUBA that requires the County to re -hear this case, we have the luxury of having probably the most complete destination resort application for a conceptual master plan that I've seen in the decade or so that I have been doing resort projects in Deschutes County. We have a complete record that was deemed approved by your staff and the Hearings Officer in 1999. We are submitting into the record all of the material that we submitted for the final master plan in 2000 when we obtained that final master plan. We are again tonight also addressing some additional issues with regard to some impacts associated with the roads in the BLM land. To give you some perspective, when we first obtained final conceptual master plan approval for this project, we had some conditions that required us to address certain standards. One was completing the BLM access. Another was getting the water resources permit for our water. The third was getting the fire protection annexation completed. The fourth was getting DEQ approval for the WPCF (Water Pollution Control Facility) permit expansion. The fifth was getting the ODOT contract done with regard to the contribution that Eagle Crest would make at the Tumalo intersection. Lastly, we had to complete the ODF&W (Oregon Department offish & Wildlife) mitigation plan for wildlife. My point here is, when you approve a CMP application, it is done consistent with your ordinance by imposing conditions. Tonight we are able to present to you a CMP application that not only addresses the seven conditions that were previously imposed by conditions, approved with conditions, but we also have in front of you an application where there will be very little need to apply conditions of approval since we have previously addressed them all. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming with regard to Eagle Crest meeting the standards. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: Are you suggesting that you have already met the twenty-four conditions, and that's what you'll show us? CRAVEN: Yes. The materials we submitted to you earlier this week (late yesterday) included a supplemental memorandum. In that we went through each of the twenty-four conditions and attached to it documents that supply you with the necessary information addressing those twenty-four conditions, along with additional information that we'll get to tonight. We have also put into the record some materials from DEQ relating to the most recent issues with regard to sewage treatment, and some concerns at Eagle Crest. All of those materials were generated by DEQ, largely in response to letters submitted to DEQ by the Shraders, who were one of the original appellants of this project. We intend tonight, both through an owner representative, through me, and through Tom Walker, to deal directly with the issues relating to the current operations and mechanical problems with the sewer at Eagle Crest. We address it in some detail in our supplemental memorandum, and the DEQ letters also address it. I will allow both Alan and Tom to advise you what kind of response they've been making, what kind of daily activities are going on, and how we intend to respond and are responding now with DEQ with regard to their requests that we have a plan of action to resolve this issue by April 27. The record regarding the sewer system is very clear. DEQ has supplied letters to you that indicate that Eagle Crest has two viable options for the sewage treatment. One is transferring the sewage to Redmond; the second is to treat on site. Just to give the audience and the Board some flavor with regard to DEQ's position on this, I'm going to quote from their March 30 letter, previously submitted to the Board and made a part of the record. DEQ, in response to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Shrader, says, "We are confident that the Eagle Crest II system as planned will be able to safely accommodate the sewage flows from the proposed Eagle Crest III development in compliance with the Eagle Crest II permit". Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: In light of the explanations provided in this letter, and in our previous letters to you, we see no reason, from the sewage disposal standpoint, for Deschutes County to refuse approval of the Eagle Crest Phase III development. Based on their performance of Eagle Crest over the past fifteen years, we are confident that the wastewater systems at Eagle Crest developments can continue to be managed and operated in compliance with their permits as these developments continue to expand." As we get into the hearing tonight, and as you hear from Alan (Van Vliet) and Tom (Walker), I believe that the record is very clear that DEQ has confidence in the Eagle Crest system, and that we will be making immediate steps to take care of maintenance problem we are currently facing. DEWOLF: And we will get evidence of all of that from DEQ? CRAVEN: You will get evidence from both Alan and Tom, who can report with regard to their meetings and conversations with DEQ. Before I turn this over to Alan, I'd like to submit into the record a couple of documents. One is a letter from the Mayor of Redmond that updates you with regard to the ongoing discussions between Eagle Crest and the City of Redmond on the opportunity and feasibility of transferring the sewage effluent to the City of Redmond. DEWOLF: What is the gist of that letter? CRAVEN: The gist of the letter is that Redmond is prepared to and has the capacity to accommodate Eagle Crest's effluent, and they are undertaking design review to accept it, and are looking forward to finalizing the terms of that agreement. DEWOLF: So the ultimate goal, then, is to have Eagle Crest on the Redmond sewer system. CRAVEN: I believe that is the preferred alternative of Eagle Crest, and I think the City of Redmond is gearing up to accommodate that. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 LUKE: Is that just for the third phase, or is that for the whole thing? TOM WALKER (off microphone): Phases II and III. Phase I is on a different system. CRAVEN: The Mayor's letter also indicates that they believe that we can finalize the rate study and the related Eagle Crest extension analysis within the next two months. DEWOLF: What is the timing of potentially hooking up with Redmond? WALKER: We've worked really closely with the City for a year. We've worked through numerous studies and evaluations. Clearly a connection is our preferred alternative. We've not yet inked a deal; and we've not closed all of our negotiations. We need to keep other options alive. We would expect to construct a main line and a pump station within a year. If you think about the timing about units coming on line in Phase III, we expect to have it substantially completed before any units come on line. LUKE: How far do you have to run the line? WALKER: About three miles. It crosses the river over the existing Highway 126 bridge. LUKE: Will there be pump stations in it? WALKER: One pump station at Eagle Crest. DEWOLF: So you would be comfortable having that as a condition, that it would be done within a year? Minutes of Public Hearing Eagle Crest III Expansion Page 12 of 66 Pages Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: I would not be comfortable with that condition. Again, all the studies have not been concluded with the City of Redmond and we have not yet inked a deal. I think it is important to keep all options open. We have a WPCF permit that is another viable option. We'll talk through that. CRAVEN: Ultimately we would like to work toward conditions relating to both of those options. (She presented a letter from the City of Redmond for the record, Exhibit A) I would also like to provide to the Board the environmental assessment that the BLM did regarding the roads, and the finding of no significant impact with regard to the road. LUKE: The road would be the road from Eagle Crest III out to Highway 126? CRAVEN: That road, and also the road that connects Eagle Crest II and III. Let me give you a brief sense of how we intend to make our presentation tonight. I'm going to turn it over to Alan Van Vliet, who is the director of construction for Eagle Crest. He will describe the project and kind of walk you through the maps so that you and the audience have a sense of the project as well as the vicinity. He is also going to address the steps that have been taken recently with regard to the sewer issue. He will then turn it back over to me, and I will go through some of the substantive standards, some of the evidence and how we address those standards. Then Tom Walker will focus specifically on some of the technical issues related to the utilities. ALAN VAN VLIET: I manage the construction and development at Eagle Crest. I would like to address the sewer treatment issues first, and then get into some of the design for Eagle Crest III. I wish we could operate a system error -free. That is our goal, but we fall short of that and make errors. One of the errors we came up with is that we found rocks in one of our valves, which caused one of our sewer problems. (He showed a small bag of rocks to the audience. They were not submitted into the record.) Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 VAN VLIET: Recently we had some surfacing problems over by the interchange, which perpetuated the article in the newspaper. This is separate from another set of drainfields that we have. What we are trying to accomplish is resting those cells and diverting the flows over to the other system; we overloaded those cells. We have also constructed eight new cells in the past year, trying to accommodate new flows. At the same time, we diverted flows over to another system we have along Cline Falls Highway. We've actually reduced our total flows to those existing nineteen cells, yet we've been having surfacing problems. W & H Pacific, DEQ and our staff have been looking into what's causing the problem. Recently, in the last few days, they have been pot -holing and looking into the system. We have probably eight cells that are only operating at about twenty-five percent capacity. We're having some blockage in the lines, and we really don't know what is causing that. They are pot -holing that and troubleshooting the system. DEWOLF: And pot -holing means? VAN VLIET: To actually expose them and find out what the problem is. We are acting responsibly and quickly, and we take this seriously. We do not want to have surfacing problems. As we manage the system, we come across situations that we have never experienced before. That's the case right now. LUKE: Are these standard type drainfields? WALKER: These are community drainfield systems, a pressured trench system. We do have drainfield rock and we have a small diameter pressurized pipe; so all of the septic tank effluent is distributed uniformly throughout the cells. We have nineteen cells; they are all remotely controlled by a computerized logic controller, with remote valves on each system. We have a series of checks and monitoring we go through every day. LUKE: How many miles of pipe are in the system? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: There are several miles of piping. VAN VLIET: In any event, our goal is to manage and develop a quality resort. That's what we want to do with the expansion. We want it to compliment the existing resort and provide amenities that we don't necessarily have at the rest of the resort, and have a comprehensive master plan that works for everybody at Eagle Crest. (He then referred to an oversized map showing the original Eagle Crest and Eagle Crest II, and the proposed Eagle Crest III. He then showed the master plan, and indicated the areas to remain open space, and those areas to be designated high density residential and timeshare units.). We have not yet defined each area, but have started some master planning. We are proposing a pond, an outdoor pool, an equestrian facility, and small sports center. VAN VLIET: We are required to have 50% open space. This open space cannot contain a golf course. The main access roads go to the northeast corner and exit out the northwest corner. There is one main looping road that goes through the property that won't have any housing on it. It is a transportation corridor only, along with the road that goes along the north boundary. Will this open space area be grassy, common space for people to use, or what is your plan? VAN VLIET: We do have a park area for people to use that would be natural open space. A lot of it would be natural. We have an extensive bike trail system that goes throughout the property as well. LUKE: Are the roads through the development public access roads? VAN VLIET: They are privately maintained, but they are not gated. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: Let me give you a brief overview of what our application includes. You are aware that we filed significant portions of these applications in 1999, and then had supplemented the record today with regard to the FMP record. So, today in front of you, you have the original CMP record and the FMP record, as well as the supplemental materials that we provided to you last night. This application as proposed to you is an expansion of an existing resort. Your ordinance allows the applicant to use the existing portions of Eagle Crest to meet the standards. Therefore, when you look at the materials in front of you, you will see that Eagle Crest is using the entire resort to meet the 50% open space; the entire resort will meet the two -to -one ratio in terms of residential uses to overnights. The entire resort will meet the density requirements. So we are not piece-mealing this approach, and we are providing that the entire resort will meet all of the standards as a part of this expansion application. Our application describes the uses and, as was found by your Hearings Officer and your staff, we have included, as Alan indicated, uses that generally are consistent with the destination resort ordinance. This ordinance provides a great deal of flexibility to a developer with regard to the type of recreational amenities, the types and nature of residential uses, the types of overnight accommodations, and that kind of thing. Our application has detailed that and indicated the public use availability of those facilities. I'm going to allow Tom to identify some of the background regarding the utility systems; but I would like to through some other portions of our application so that you understand sort of the breadth and detail with regard to the record that's in front of you. In 1999 we submitted all the design guidelines and CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) for the project; an open space plan; a traffic analysis which I will get into in a little bit; a phasing plan; financial security evidence with regard to the resources of the applicant to complete Eagle Crest III; a water study; an erosion study; a wildfire plan; and an economic impact and feasibility analysis. This kind of evidence that we provided in the original application, and have since supplemented with the FMP, is then essentially flipped into the approval criteria in the destination resort ordinance. That's what I'd like to address. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: First of all, there is a significant economic analysis and feasibility report provided in the record. There is assurance from Jeld Wen with regard to the financial resources to provide for Eagle Crest III. There's also a report regarding the significant financial contributions that Eagle Crest makes to the local economy. In the supplemental memorandum that we supplied to you, there is a resolution of the wildlife habitat mitigation plan. When the Hearings Officer first approved this CMP, we had not concluded those discussions with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, and we since have. So as a part of the FMP, we submitted a letter and a contract between Eagle Crest and ODF&W that resolves the wildlife mitigation, both on site and off site. So that is now complete. It demonstrates through the discussions with ODF&W that the standards with regard to no net loss have been met. We also, in 1999, submitted a traffic analysis from Kittleson & Associates. Kittleson analyzed the traffic generated by Eagle Crest III and used very conservative numbers with regard to their estimates. They included the golf course, for example, which is not now presently planned. They also used exclusively weekday, summertime conditions at full build -out. So the numbers regarding traffic are at the peak time in the peak part of the year at Eagle Crest, at full build -out. In all instances in the Kittleson report you will see that maximum numbers have been used. The conclusion of the Kittleson report is that all of the access roads as you've seen described by Alan (Van Vliet) work within the capacity. The Cline Falls intersection for Eagle Crest works, the Cline Falls/Highway 126 interchange, which Eagle Crest significantly contributed to a couple of years ago, also, and the Tumalo intersection with Cline Falls, which is already failing and continues to fail. We have provided in the documents to you a contract that has been negotiated with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding Eagle Crest's contribution in the Tumalo intersection. This was negotiated as a part of the FMP in 2000, in which Eagle Crest agrees to contribute $240,000 to the construction of an interchange at the Tumalo intersection; this was approved and accepted by the Hearings Officer in the year 2000. DEWOLF: And that is to go toward what kind of solution? Or has that been determined? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: To go to an interchange at the Highway 20/Cline Falls intersection. LUKE: The solution has not yet been determined by ODOT. They have left that option open because of different things they are looking at in that area. But, that is your contribution to the total. CRAVEN: Another issue that we have since resolved is the annexation to the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District. Again, my point here is that in the original CMP, you had to deal with many of these things by condition. In that circumstance, this application was approved. Now all of these things have been resolved, and we believe the application should again be approved by the County. I'm going to allow Tom (Walker) to discuss in more detail the sewer issue, and I'm not going to repeat my comments from before. I think that Alan (Van Vliet) stated well the owner's sense of responsibility to fix the current situation, and I believe they intend to do so. I also think the record satisfies the standards with regard to the sewer options that are available to Eagle Crest; and we'd like to work with you and your staff to ensure that any conditions of approval maintain those options, but also ensure that the standards are met. Let me talk for a minute about water. In 19999 as a part of our application, we submitted a water management plan and a conservation plan. That's consistent with the requirements of your ordinance. We indicated then that a proposed new water well was going to be needed from the Oregon Water Resources Department, and the condition by the Hearings Officer required us to complete that process. It was not complete at the time we got the previous approval. We had a condition to finalize that process with OWRD, and we have done so. So you will see in the FMP in 2000 that we submitted to and was accepted by the Hearings Officer, the permit that has been issued by OWRD to Eagle Crest for a new groundwater appropriation for water for Eagle Crest III covers all uses needed for water at that resort. We have now received the water permit that allows quasi- municipal use. It covers all uses for Eagle Crest III, and it was issued after both a technical review of the water permit application and a broader public interest review. OWRD completed both of those processes and approved the permit. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: There was a contest filed against that permit that was withdrawn; it was dealt with by OWRD and was not further appealed. So the water permit for Eagle Crest III is final, is approved, and is no longer contested. As a part of obtaining the water permit, Eagle Crest obtained approval of a mitigation plan providing for a gallon -for -gallon reintroduction of water to the Deschutes River to protect in -stream flows. This occurred while the Deschutes Basin study plan was underway in regard to the question of the connectivity between groundwater and surface water in Deschutes County. As a part of approving our mitigation plan and the water permit for Eagle Crest III, OWRD made some findings. One, it will not impair or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. Two, that it provides a benefit to the Deschutes River. Three, that it provides a public benefit, specifically because it has an enforceable, permanent mitigation plan. And four, that there would be no harm to senior water rights. The standard for you to consider in the arena of water for this destination resort conceptual master plan is whether there is adequate water for all the proposed uses They clearly meet that standard because of the approval of the permit and the mitigation plan. The reason I'm going into some detail in water use is because at the last FMP hearing we had on this project, there was some testimony with regard to how Eagle Crest's well may affect other wells in the vicinity. And the reason I think it's important for you to understand the findings that OWRD made in the issuance of our water permit is to recognize that those concerns regarding wells in the vicinity and whether there would be an impact has already been dealt with by OWRD and our water permit. It provides that Eagle Crest has adequate water and that there would be no injury to existing water rights. It also contains the standard provision that is provided for in all water rights; that is, if there is interference with senior water rights, OWRD implements action through a mitigation plan to handle that interference. In my view, the evidence is clear that the water issue has been adequately dealt with by OWRD; we have adequate water for all of our proposed uses; and OWRD has made some significant findings regarding public impact and water impact. I'm going to deal now with the last issue I think we want to address. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: Can I ask one question? When you talk about reintroducing water into the Deschutes River, is that from current uses; that you are mitigating something in the first two phases of Eagle Crest in order to allow for it, or what? WALKER (off the microphone): It's actually an agricultural surface water right that has been transferred permanently into the Deschutes River to offset the new permit. CRAVEN: There are two standards in the destination resort ordinance that relate to impacts. I'd like to talk a little bit about those, and then will indicate how we've addressed those. In our original application and Hearings Officer's approval of the CMP, the Hearings Officer concluded, on the basis of our first application, that our site improvements were located and designed in order to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on surrounding uses. That conclusion has already been made with regard to the improvements we are making on the 480 acres and whether those improvements have any potential for adverse impacts on the surrounding land. The Hearings Officer concluded that we had located and designed our improvements so as to minimize adverse effects. There was also a conclusion made, based on our earlier evidence, that we are not altering the character of the surrounding area, or requiring any changes in the permitted or conditional uses of those properties. Your ordinance requires this to be considered for 660 feet around the site of the destination resort. The determination that we are not having significant offsite impacts is clearly based in part on the fact that the site itself is surrounded almost entirely by many acres of Bureau of Land Management land. So in terms of other residential uses in the vicinity, our site improvements for the resort obviously have very minimal impact on surrounding land. What I'd like to address a little bit tonight, though, is to sort of broaden that discussion, and deal with the resort roads, because that has obviously been a concern of the appellants and perhaps others in regard to impacts. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: The resort roads that Alan pointed to connecting Eagle Crest II with Eagle Crest III, and then also connect Eagle Crest III up to Highway 126, are located entirely on federal land. They were located by the BLM; that decision is done. It has been submitted to you and was approved by the Hearings Officer in the IMP approval. The County does not have land use jurisdiction over those federal lands. They are not part of the resort site. When LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) told you to re -notice this, and insure that notice went to property owners within 500 feet of these access roads, they didn't say that the County needs to address and include these roads as a part of the destination resort site. But they did indicate that you need to provide notice with regard to those roads, and to people within 500 feet of those roads. So it is my view that it is not part of the County's jurisdiction to review for land use purposes whether those roads meet these impact standards. However, we did so, and we have, in our supplemental memorandum, addressed that because we do not want there to be an issue again on appeal as to whether and how these roads ought to be addressed. I do think it is important when the County makes this decision that you make it clear that we do not believe this needs to be done, but that you have done so. That is how we would like to see the findings addressed with regard to these roads. Having said that, let me tell you how we evaluated the impacts of these roads. Somewhat above and beyond the call of duty, Eagle Crest engaged some consultants with regard to consideration of impacts. They looked at both of the roads, they looked at the surrounding uses, they looked at the locations of adjacent uses on the lands, where the homes are, if any, on private property in and around those roads; they looked at the distances of those homes to the road; they looked at the topography, and they looked at the vegetation. You also have in the record the BLM decision with regard to location of those roads, and they went through an environmental assessment in the siting of those roads. They looked at alternatives and they came up with a road location based on a variety of factors, including environmental assessments and impacts. After looking at all those factors, the consultants that Eagle Crest retained made some interesting findings; specifically, through the Kittleson report and through a noise analysis that we had done with regard to those roads. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: The noise consultant concluded that regarding to the road to the north, heading north from Eagle Crest up to Highway 126, that none of the residences near that roadway will have any audio impacts from traffic on the Eagle Crest road, given their proximity to Highway 126. So you will see in the record that the houses along that proposed road are in fact closer to Highway 126 than they are to our road; and that the traffic on Highway 126 is about 11,000 vehicles a day, substantially higher than the traffic you're going to see on the Eagle Crest road. DEWOLF: And you are saying that there are two homes located in this area? CRAVEN: Yes. (She referred to an oversized map detailing the proposed road, Highway 126 and the location of the residences in question.) It is 900 feet from that access road to the Shrader's house. The Shrader's house is 125 feet from Highway 126. LUKE: What is the topography between their house and Highway 126? CRAVEN: The noise consultant went through all that. There is a slight berm between the road and the residence; the other appellant does not yet have a home on his property. So I would encourage you to take a look at the audio study in the record and the Kittleson supplemental study as well. The reason we did this is not because we had to. I don't think the legal standards require us to, and I don't think the County has land use jurisdiction with regard to impacts associated with this road because it's a BLM decision. It's done, and has not been appealed. But Eagle Crest did go through this anyway in an effort to address the concerns that have been raised with regard to potential impacts. AUDIENCE MEMBER (off the microphone. Later identified as Monica Graham): The whole area echoes. I live near Eagle Ridge, on the last five -acre parcel before the BLM road. During building and road construction, I can tell you the noise level is real, and does not go away because of any buttes. What she is saying is untrue. It echoes. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 22 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: I don't think she is saying that there is no noise. I think she is claiming, if I am understanding her correctly, that there is more noise from the highway because of the volume of cars and the location of this one residence that she's talking about. The Shrader home and their property is 750 or 800 feet closer to the highway than it is to the road that will go through the BLM land. AUDIENCE MEMBER (off the microphone. Later identified as Monica Graham).- There raham):There will be more and more noise, as it echoes. TOM WALKER: I'm an engineer with W & H Pacific, and am representing Eagle Crest. I want to talk about both the water supply system and the sewage disposal system. Water supplies for Eagle Crest fall under the jurisdiction of both the Oregon Health Division and the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Health Division is more involved with water quality, and the Water Resources Department is more involved with water rights. As Nancy indicated, we have a water right for Eagle Crest III. In order to issue that water right, the OWRD had to determine that our new well could be developed without injury to any prior water user. In making that determination and reviewing our application, the OWRD had to depend a lot on the ongoing groundwater hydrology study for the upper Deschutes basin. (He then provided a copy of this study for the record, attached as Exhibit B) This study represents a multi-year, multi-million dollar study. It determined that there is a very vast groundwater supply in the Deschutes basin. It also determined that the groundwater supply is connected to the surface waters. In order to prevent an impact from groundwater withdrawal, mitigation was required. Eagle Crest did prepare a mitigation plan and had that plan subsequently approved. The study determined that the impacts to surface waters occur in the lower reach of the River, essential below Lake Billy Chinook. Our water right mitigation is to take agricultural rights and put them into the river, perpetually, forever. Those water rights go into the river in Bend. Really, our mitigation improves the middle reach of the Deschutes River even though the impacts occur only in the lower reach. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 23 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: In our opinion, we have exceeded the requirements. We've also already put that water into the river. We have not yet drilled our well. Again, we believe that our mitigation has exceeded the impacts. DEWOLF: And you are only claiming that because you are doing it upstream from where the impact is going to be? WALKER: We put water into the middle reach of the River, but the study concludes that the impacts are only in the lower reach. DALY: When you say you put it in, what you really did was buy some irrigation rights from a Bend farm or ranch, and that water is not being taken out. How many acres did you buy? WALKER: We bought and transferred twenty-two acres of agricultural water rights permanently into the River. It is also important to note that OWRD requires us to constantly monitor the water that we withdraw. If they determine that our original estimates are wrong, then we are obligated to transfer more water. The mitigation has to match the impacts, the consumptive portion of the water right, forever. That's a part of our ground water permit. We have had some questions and concerns about the impact of groundwater pumping on other wells in the area. Again, the study is very important. It concludes that there is no long-term impact to the groundwater table from pumping. There are changes to groundwater wells because of climate, but not from pumping. Again, that's why they were able to issue their permit to us. DEWOLF: So, fifty years from now, Eagle Crest III is taking out more than what these twenty-two acres have provided. Eagle Crest III would then be required at that point, according to this agreement, to then mitigate. WALKER: Absolutely. And that's part of the prior appropriation doctrine that is a critical part of water law. It always protects the prior user. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 24 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: Which is why we had the big issue with Warm Springs and had to deal with the treaty that was over 100 years old. WALKER: That's correct. I will talk briefly about water quality. The Oregon Health Division checks water quality monthly at every well at Eagle Crest. After our new well is constructed, there will be water quality testing on five wells on a monthly basis, plus more water quality testing on a less frequent basis. In addition to all that, we have a monitoring well that is tested regularly. So there are lots of checks and constant monitoring by the government to worry about water quality, in addition to water quantity that is handled by water rights. In regard to sewage disposal, as we mentioned earlier, we have two options that I think are important to maintain. Clearly our preferred option is to go to Redmond, but we haven't concluded that deal yet and the City of Redmond is still proceeding through a rate study; it really isn't fair to jump to conclusions about the outcome of that. DEWOLF: When Nancy (Craven) mentioned earlier that the sewer problem that exists now would be solved by April 27, you weren't implying that negotiations with the City of Redmond would be completed; it's the current issue on the ground that will be dealt with. WALKER: That's correct. Let me talk about those sewage disposal facilities. We have a water pollution control facility, a WPCF permit, to operate sewage collection and disposal facilities at Eagle Crest; specifically at Eagle Crest II, and the initial flows at Eagle Crest III. That permit was issued by the DEQ. We have constructed sewage disposal facilities at Eagle Crest to coincide with the flows that we get from our sewage contributions; and, as required by our permit, we have kept up. In fact, I have a handout that describes the construction of cells that has taken place (W & H Pacific, one page document, attached as Exhibit Q. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 25 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: In the spring of 2000 we had eleven disposal cells that had been constructed. Five new cells were constructed in the first quarter of the year 2000. In the summer of 2000, Eagle Crest constructed three additional disposal cells. At all times our disposal capacity exceeded our actual flows. Even though our design capacity exceeded flows, we did encounter problems last summer. Eagle Crest took immediate action, and continued to construct new disposal cells in the summer. Eagle Crest also designed and constructed an innovative diversion sewer to transfer flows to a different facility that had excess capacity. DEWOLF: (Examining the handout.) What does GPD mean? WALKER: Gallons per day. If you compare the flows from March of 2000 to the flows of March 2001, you will see that we have almost reduced our flows in half, and at the same time we have almost doubled our disposal capacity. Now recently Eagle Crest and my staff have instituted an aggressive monitoring and control program, including physical testing and trouble -shooting on a daily basis. We've worked closely with DEQ, and we have really for fifteen years on this system. And, in fact, DEQ assisted us in some of our field investigations. As Alan indicated, what we've found in the last few days is that we have a partial blockage in a portion of our underground cells. If you can imagine that we have nineteen disposal cells - drainfields, with each one of these nineteen cells has twelve or thirteen laterals that distribute effluent to a rock trench. What we've found is that our effluent charge, or dose, is going to two or three laterals instead of to twelve. That's why essentially we have only been using about twenty-five percent of our capacity in those affected cells. In my twenty-five years I have never seen a partial blockage. I don't know what caused it, but we have people digging up pipe and cutting into those things to determine that today. What I am optimistic about is that, because we know two- thirds of our cells are dry and haven't been receiving sewage, we can immediately get back to our capacity. Now, if that doesn't happen, if for some reason we can't get back to our capacity, Eagle Crest will continue to construct cells just like we have in the past year to make sure that we meet the capacity needs of DEQ. LUKE: As you have continued to have growth, how have you been able to cut down your average monthly flow? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 26 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: We constructed a sewer that diverted flows from the Eagle Crest II project back to our existing facility on Cline Falls Highway, which is on the other side of the road under a different WPCF permit. We did that, really, at DEQ's suggestion. We had to change some sewage pumps and do some things like that to make it all work, but we were able to divert a significant flow. LUKE: The overall contribution hasn't gone down for both sides, just in the system that is having the problem. WALKER: Exactly. Again, what I wanted to demonstrate with the handout is that we did aggressively address capacity issues. We almost doubled our disposal capacity at the same time we almost reduced in half the volume of sewage that was going to that system. Again today we found that we have a partial blockage, and I'm optimistic that we can restore that capacity. Really, unless there are further questions, that concludes my comments. Thank you. CRAVEN: We'd be please to answer questions, and we also intend to respond to anything that comes up this evening, either orally tonight or to provide it in writing to you later. wer4z (To Roger Everett.) Roger, I was hoping the Chair would call on you to comment on this situation so you don't have to sit here all night with us. Is that okay with you, Mr. Chair? ROGER EVERETT (Deschutes County Environmental Health Manager): I was invited out last Thursday by DEQ to look at the drainfield and cells at Eagle Crest. The County hasn't issued any permits out there, but DEQ has issued WPCF permits. That means that these are larger flow operations; we issue for the most part permits for single-family residences in the County, and have for many years. I've been working in this field for about 28 years. Dick Nichols, the Manager of the local office of DEQ, asked me to go out as a disinterested third party and look at the sewage treatment out there, and offer my opinion; and just observe what was going on. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 27 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 EVERETT: What we found were the various cells, as described, which are dosed intermittently from a series of pumps and switches. Some were working; some were not getting any flow; some were being hydraulically overloaded and were coming to the surface of the ground and there was sewage out there. They were failing. I don't know exactly what the solution is. First of all, we need to find out why those cells aren't working or why they are getting partial flows. There were some rocks that almost look like drainfield rock, that could be coming back into the switches from the drainfields, as there are no backflow prevention devices; they can't go through the tanks and the pumps. They have to be somewhere in the system as part of the construction process, or they are coming into it from the ends of these small diameter pipes, either when the water is pumped into these cells and there is a backflow that actually flushes them in. I think that's something that can and should be explored. As a result of that visit and seeing sewage on the ground, DEQ issued what is called a "Notice of Non-compliance", which basically says there is sewage on the ground, this is a health hazard, you need to attend to this immediately. Have you ever received an NON before? WALKER: (Replied off the microphone.) Eagle Crest has received two of these NON's in the last two weeks. EVERETT: That kind of puts them on DEQ's radar screen for further scrutiny, and also can lead to economic fines, I suppose, if the problem extends over a period of time. I think if you have another one I think with thirty-six months, this can lead to further sanctions. The conclusions that I drew just from seeing these systems for a short period of time, and not seeing the entire system at all, is that they need to be trouble -shot for problems within the existing system. It may be hydraulically overloaded; there may be too much sewage going into this system, and they may have to add further drainfield or cells to accommodate this increased flow. It needs to be done right away. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 28 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 EVERETT: This Notice of Noncompliance gives Eagle Crest until April 27 to get this problem solved. Hopefully, as a result of that visit, there will be more attention given to this system on a daily basis. What I saw was a drainfield that had been having problems for some time in different spots. It might be kind of like putting your finger in the dike and running out of fingers, I'm not sure. DALY: Is this just one cell that's the problem? EVERETT: No. This is a whole network of cells. DALY: Is it just one big area? EVERETT: Well, I saw two different areas; but there is a third area down in Eagle Crest I, down below the road, in the original area. DALY: All three are giving problems? EVERETT: We did not look at the original Eagle Crest, where a lot of the flow has been diverted to decrease the pressure on these other two fields of cells. This problem has to be attended to right away, and I believe that Eagle Crest is doing that. I know that DEQ is going to give increased attention to that system. LUKE: The Terrebonne School is also overseen by DEQ. We ran into that when we were doing the Boys & Girls Club there. EVERETT: Larger flow systems go beyond the average daily sewage flow of a residence, and their permits are primarily issued by DEQ. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 29 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 EVERETT: One of the things that I would be prefer, and maybe I would agree with Eagle Crest, is that the sewage be pumped into the Redmond sewage treatment plan, as a long-term solution to the increased development out there. I guess I would like to see all of the sewage go there. LUKE: Has everybody signed up who wants to testify? DEWOLF: (He was given the sign up sheets - two pages.) Is there anybody else who hasn't signed up who would like to testify this evening? LUKE: Even if you haven't signed up, if there is something that you want to say, you are still welcome to raise your hand. DEWOLF: We will allow testimony according to the sign up list, in that order, based on criteria before us. Then we'll give the applicants the opportunity at the end to sum things up; then anyone who wishes to add additional testimony should do so in writing sometime within the fourteen -day period that I described at the beginning of the meeting. One thing that I am advised to point out by County Counsel is that we need to put on the record that one of the appellants, Mr. Shrader, was asked to leave before the hearing because of a heated discussion that was taking place. However, if he returns he will be allowed to testify providing that he does so under the circumstances that I described earlier, that this be done in a civil and respectful tone. Of course, he will be giving the opportunity to put anything into the record in writing, as can anyone else here. I would like to begin the testimony by asking if there are any of the four people who are parties to the appeal here tonight; if there are, I will give them the opportunity to go first. JEAN SHRADER: I live at 11480 West Highway 126 in Redmond. I'm wondering if I can request an opportunity to provide some brief rebuttal testimony. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 30 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: That's what you have the opportunity to do now. In addition, if there is anything that is stated throughout the rest of the evening that you would like to respond to, absolutely do so in writing, and we will read everything that comes in to us. SHRADER: I would like to remind everyone that there is a reason we have land use laws, and that is to ensure that proper planning occurs before development occurs to avoid problems maybe like the ones we are currently seeing at Eagle Crest. Let me just tell you briefly a little bit about myself. I'm a part time teacher at Central Oregon Community College; I'm a music teacher. I am also the music director of Obsidian Opera Company. I'm an organist at First United Methodist Church in Bend, and I have numerous other music -related jobs. I've lived in Central Oregon for about ten and one-half years. My husband and I bought the property where we now live because it was at the very edge of any houses in the Redmond area. We were right next to BLM property, and we previously owned some adjacent property that was also next to BLM property. Some of that we have since sold. Paul Blikstad said something about the map that was included with the hearings notice. I would just like to make a clarification of that map. The map showed the highway as being Highway 20. 1 believe it is Highway 126; that's my address. Sometimes I realize that errors can creep in as they did previously with the dating of the final master plan decision, which was one month off. The Deschutes County Code states that written notice shall be given to owners of record of property within 500 feet of property that is in a farm or forest zone. And also there are state land use goals, such as Goal 1, citizen involvement, and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; all of these require that citizens be involved in land use decisions that may affect their livelihood and well being. The National Environmental Policy Act also requires public involvement in decisions that are made by federal agencies, such as the BLM. The County, in the previous CMP hearing, notified only three private landowners of the September 14, 1999 hearing. That's because at that time the they believed that the only affected parties would be those people within 500 or maybe 700 feet now of the resort itself. As a result of our LUBA appeal, this decision was remanded and that's why we're here today. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 31 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 SHRADER: I took a look at the list of the people who were notified of this hearing and I realize that it's been stated that they actually notified more people than they had to, which is good. There were about 135 privately owned parcels that were notified of this new hearing. One of the reasons that we appealed is that we were not informed of this hearing back in 1999. In addition, I think these additional 135 or so people also should have been notified in 1999. If all of us had been, perhaps the outcome of the approval of the CMP or some other permits or whatever might have been different from what it has turned out to be now. It's been nineteen months since this original hearing, and in that nineteen months many things have been worked out, permits and requirements have been worked out by Eagle Crest. We didn't find out about the project at all, because we didn't take the newspaper at the time. So we didn't realize that there was anything that would be impacting us at all. There was notification by BLM of the road access that was proposed, but the extent of the BLM notification to the public, except for people who had requested notification, was a published notice in the newspaper's legal notice section. It was published one time in the Redmond Spokesman and the Prineville paper, and one other paper, around the end of December 1999. Anyway, in order to get us to the point where all of us, the 135 or so private property owners, could exercise our legal right to be involved, it has taken not only nineteen months but an absolutely incredible, huge expenditure and financial burden on our part. I'm a music teacher. I don't make very much money. And I don't think it's fair that we had to go to these lengths in order to secure that which was really, legally right in the first place. I understand that there's nothing that you guys can do about this unfair situation. I want you to realize that the applicant has had nineteen months to get a leg up on all of this, and now they have gotten all their permits and requirements without having had to give the public an opportunity for input. The requirement for this hearing that we're now at could have been avoided if Eagle Crest had been the good neighbor that they purport to be; if only they'd notified us or just told us of their intended expansion and the access roads that are going to go right by our property. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 32 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 SHRADER: It also could have been avoided if Eagle Crest had negotiated in good faith after we stayed the LUBA appeal at their request. The result of our negotiations was that Eagle Crest didn't want to compromise on anything. In essence, they forced us to reopen this appeal and thus caused all the resulting legal and procedural problems and expense for my husband and me. It's been very hard. It's been very hard. I have a question, but I don't know if it falls under any of those code sections. I am wondering about what Eagle Crest's long-term master plan is. There's been some discussion that they are interested in swapping BLM land, that they want to close up to 1,500 acres of BLM land to motorized vehicles; it seems to me that property owners in the area and the City of Redmond should be made aware of the potential future impact of Eagle Crest's possible expansion. Do they want to become a city without having to follow the rules, laws and guidelines that cities have to? The estimate project population for Eagle Crest's Phases I, II and III at build -out is nearly 7,800 people. This is larger than many cities in Oregon; and is approximately the same size that Redmond was in 1991. I think there ought to be a law limiting the size of destination resorts, both in population and in acreage; or maybe the solution is to repeal the destination resort ordinance which says that it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety. I would like to ask the question; how have destination resorts helped the public peace? And it's obvious from the sewage situation right now that public health and safety are not being preserved. And I want to know what the emergency is, that has been declared by this ordinance to exist. Deschutes County Code 18.113.070(1) states that "approval of the conceptual master plan shall be conditioned on applicants making application to DEQ for a WPCF permit, and the applicant shall receive approval of a WPCF permit consistent with this provision prior to applying for approval for its final master plan". I understand from documents I've seen that Eagle Crest has made application for a renewal of the Eagle Crest Phase II WPCF permit. This permit expired on May 31, 2000. I also understand that the old permit remains in effect until the renewal permit is issued. We assume that the renewal permit would include Eagle Crest Phase III; but as far as we know it has not been issued. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 33 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 SHRADER: Today I talked with Joni Hammond, the regional DEQ person in Pendleton, and she said she didn't realize that the permit had expired, and she didn't know if the renewal permit included Eagle Crest III. She was going to get back to me before the hearing, but she didn't. I think that the current sewage disposal problems at Eagle Crest could have been avoided if caution had been taken based on earlier reports and decisions. In 1994 W & H Pacific stated there was a problem with shallow soil profiles in Eagle Crest II regarding subsurface sewage disposal. That was included in the conceptual master plan decision. As recently as July of 2000, W & H Pacific reiterated this problem in a letter dated July 25, 2000 that was sent to DEQ. The final master plan approval of Eagle Crest II, Eagle Ridge, was subject to conditions of approval. Condition #30 reads, "Approval of each phase of development that will utilize subsurface drainage systems may be denied by Deschutes County if DEQ has withdrawn approval for the subsurface systems, or if there is substantial evidence to indicate that the systems are failing". So, the County can withdraw approval for future phases of development if they feel that there is substantial evidence that the systems are failing. And Roger Everett stated that the systems are failing. Under Oregon Administrative Rule 660.022.0050, a sewer and water public facility plan for a destination resort is required if existing sewer or water facilities are insufficient for current needs, or are projected as becoming insufficient due to physical conditions or land in the community has been declared a health hazard or has a history of failing septic systems or wells. It further says that if existing community facilities and services are not adequate to serve the development allowed in the plan and zoning ordinance, the plan must contain either development restrictions to ensure that development will not exceed the capacity; or a list of required facilities, cost providers, funding, and so on, until the necessary public facilities are available for that development. I believe that Eagle Crest Phase II and III master sewage and water plans fail to address or comply with the requirements of OAR 660.022.0050. DEWOLF: Will you provide a copy of this to us? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 34 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 I'm going to submit all of this information. It may not be tonight, but it will be within the required time frame. Because the previous land use decisions have been invalidated because of the LUBA decision and the judge's order based on that, I believe that the DEQ approval of Eagle Crest Phase III should be revoked. Pursuant to OAR 340.018.0050(2)(ag), if a local government land use compatibility determination or underlying land use decision is appealed subsequent to department's receipt of the land use compatibility statement, called LUCS, the department - which would be DEQ - shall continue to process the action unless ordered otherwise by LUBA; or, a court of law stays or invalidates a local action. Now, a court of law has stayed or invalidated the local action, the approval of Phase III. Therefore, I believe that DEQ approval of the permit should also be invalidated. DEWOLF: Have you contacted DEQ to get their response to that? SHRADER: I have. I have not received a response. DALY: You say a court of law has invalidated this. Are you talking about LUBA? SHRADER: No. It's a long history of what we've had to go through. We appealed to LUBA; but in the meantime we also appealed the final master plan first of all to the hearings officer, who denied us standing and said we were not a party. Then we appealed the final master plan to the Board of Commissioners, and they declared that it was moot because they had already issued a writ of mandamus that approved the final master plan. So, as a result of that whole write of mandamus thing and our trying to become interveners in that, there was a judge's order that invalidated the land use approval, and also reactivated our appeal of the final master plan. Does that answer your question? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 35 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DALY: I'm not familiar with that order. Will you provide that? SHRADER: I will put it in the record. I would like to make you aware that there was a sewage pipeline connecting Eagle Crest II to Eagle Crest III along an access road. I guess the purpose of that is for distributing Eagle Crest III effluent to Eagle Crest II drainfields. This sewage pipe was installed while the renewal permit for Eagle Crest II was only in the application stage. So the permit had expired but was still being treated as if it was okay, I guess. The pipe was installed one stick at a time and then immediately backfilled, therefore there was no inspection of that sewage pipe. LUKE: Do you know that for a fact that there was no inspection? SHRADER: No, I haven't researched the inspection reports, but I was there when it was being installed. DALY: Do you know it was sewer pipe and not water line? SHRADER: It was sewer pipe. IRIRM �i I've done some personal projects where the developer actually hired a city inspector to be there with the crews as they laid the pipe. SHRADER: There were no inspectors on site, at least the time that we were there. I'd like to talk about the access roads. (She showed an overhead of a local map) Here the road is identified as Highway 126, which is correct. On the map that was included with the hearing notice, it was incorrectly identified as Highway 20. (She showed her property in relation to Highway 126.) It is true that the highway goes right next to my property, but there is a huge cut in the road at that point, near where my house is located. The cut goes down at least twenty feet, so all the noise from the traffic of the highway is kind of tunneled into that corridor. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 36 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: So the highway is below you. SHRADER: The highway is way below me. Sure, I can hear noise from trucks and stuff like that, but it is muffled because of the cut in the road. I don't really know how much noise is going to come from the traffic on this access road, but the direction the wind blows most of the time is from the west. So, when the wind is blowing it will blow the noise right across my property, which is basically at the same elevation as the access road. The cut in the road later is significantly less, and further on there is no cut. The reason I've gotten involved in all this is because of the road issue. I don't want to have 3,660 vehicles per day going past my property without being told about it. DEWOLF: Where is your access? Do you access your home from Highway 126? SHRADER: Yes, there is a driveway from the highway. I'd like to shift for a moment to water. I'd like to use the overhead. (She showed a graph showing various well locations on an area map and the history of the depths of the wells.) In the Eagle Crest CMP application and the statement in support, they included a water study that was completed in 1992. The USGS, I know, has done this huge study, and I've talked with a guy at USGS in Portland, and he assures me that it is all climate related. But, I have some interesting excerpts from USGS data to show you. This is from USGS open file report 97-7, which is kind of a preliminary thing that went before their big report. I selected seven wells. One is on Eagle Crest property; one is on property that I used to own, about 300 feet from my current well; and there are others in the general area. I chose these wells because they were all monitored long-term, from like 1979 to somewhere in the 1990's. At the Watermaster's, the Eagle Crest well shows as "unused". I don't know if they use it or not. That's the data that was available at the Watermaster's office. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 37 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 What I want this to show you is that the level of the wells is not significant, really; it shows you how deep the water is. You'll notice that in 1993 one was at 246 feet, and in 1999 it is over 250 feet. There's the well that's near my property, and in 1979 it was at 449 feet, and in 1997 it was at 458 feet. All of these show the water level is dropping. DEWOLF: So what you want to show is that there has been an effect on the water, from your perspective. SHRADER: I believe there has been. I asked Marshall Gannett at USGS in Portland why these wells are going down. He said it's because of climate. These are going down, but others, like in the Sisters area, are being recharged. DEWOLF: Would you accept the fact that if what Eagle Crest is required to do is replenish by purchasing other water rights and putting them back in the river, that it balances and has no net effect on the water, would you accept that premise? SHRADER: Run that by me again, now. DEWOLF: What they have done to address the water issue is to buy water rights and put that water back into the river, to compensate for the water that is being taken out. SHRADER: Yeah, but we're talking about groundwater here. You can't put water back into the ground. LUKE: His point is that the study that was done examines the relationship between groundwater and surface water, and there is a relationship. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 38 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 SHRADER: I realize that. But the relationship between the ground and surface water I think is different in different places. I think it's different in the Redmond area. Marshall Gannett didn't agree with me. The other thing is that I've talked with a number of people who said in the summer of 1995 they noticed that their well didn't have any more water in it, just a trickle. I think this is true for a number of people in the Redmond area. I'm just concerned that there is a huge draw from Eagle Crest - for instance, an 18 - hole golf course uses a million and a half gallons of water a day, in the summer, and Eagle Crest has three of these. That's four and one-half million gallons of water a day, taken out of the aquifer and not being put back into the aquifer until the next winter. Maybe it's not getting recharged as quickly in the Redmond area as it is in other areas. I don't know. I'm just concerned that everyone is going to have to lower his or her pump. I'm concerned about the open space requirements and the fulfillment of that. County code requires that the resort shall have a minimum of 50% of their acreage dedicated to permanent open space for each phase, as well as for the entire resort. The application and exhibits of the open space plan fail to comply with these requirements. You can't use drainfields or playing fields or areas intended for future development as open space areas. It must be permanently identified at the time of approval and dedicated to that use of open space. I'm also concerned about the wildlife situation. The code says that any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or degradation. I know that Nancy Craven has said that this has taken place, but the evidence in the record with respect to the wildlife fails to adequately analyze impacts to the 68 species that are mentioned in the ODW&F letter of July 20, 1999. I don't believe that a significant or complete review of the wildlife situation was done, even though the mitigation plan has been approved. Again, I request that the record be kept open for additional testimony and that I be allowed an opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony. DEWOLF: And you will. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 39 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 SHRADER: Okay. I think that's all I have. DEWOLF: Thank you. (To Alan Unger.) Alan, I know that you have a meeting to attend, so if you want to testify now, you can. ALAN UNGER: (He submitted a statement into the record at this time, seven pages, identified as Exhibit D.) I live at 1544 NW 4th Street, Redmond. I'm here as a citizen of Redmond. I'm not for or against the Eagle Crest development. About once a week I take my son, Alex, out to the Shrader's house for a piano lesson. Jean is an excellent musician and teacher. In fact, she didn't tell you this, but the house they bought was the house built by Mr. Zumstein, the guy who started the reindeer ranch and knew so much about reindeer. When he built that house, he created this playroom on the second floor that is one huge room, and Jean has a grand piano in there, and it sounds excellent. At one lesson, Jean showed me some material about Eagle Crest, and I looked at it. I looked at the private land around it, and the BLM possible exchange land that was in the paper, and I became concerned. I asked myself, how big will Eagle Crest become? With the completion of Phase III, Eagle Crest will be bigger than Prineville is today. All cities and counties in Oregon are required to have a twenty-year comprehensive growth plan that addresses the state's land use goals. I would like to see Eagle Crest have a twenty-year master plan that all the jurisdictions could use for planning the interface between Eagle Crest and the jurisdictions. Eagle Crest does not sell low-income housing, but they create low-income service jobs. I would like to see them, through the economic analysis, address the issue of low- income housing, and how it affects the Redmond area. Eagle Crest wastewater should go to the City of Redmond. I think that's the best thing that could happen for the environment. We looked at the mayor's letter this morning and approved it to send it on to you. The present City Council, though, has not seen a feasibility study, nor have we discussed the issues. So I wouldn't say it's a done deal, but that it's an option. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 40 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 UNGER: We need to build more schools in Redmond. Eagle Crest does not put many kids in school, but the people who work there have kids who do. At the last Redmond school district bond issue in November, Precinct 19, Eagle Crest and Eagle Ridge, voted only 43% yes for schools. I'm just trying to explain that Eagle Crest does have impacts in a lot of different areas, and we need to look at them. DEWOLF: And what was the overall percentage of yes versus no in the whole vote? UNGER: I don't know that. I guess it was about the same. LUKE: Do you know, also, how much money Eagle Crest puts into property taxes in the Redmond School District? UNGER: I don't know that answer. Eagle Crest is a good neighbor. I don't want to put them down. I just want to make sure that we look at the issues that it creates by development. Whether it's Eagle Crest or Sunriver, or the City of Redmond or whatever, we all have issues that we need to address. I'm just trying to make sure that these are. Chair De Wolf recessed the meeting at this time for a ten -minutes break. RON BROWN: I'm a landowner living within 7/10 of a mile from the existing Eagle Crest properties. I have two questions to address to the Eagle Crest folks. The first question is, regarding the BLM properties that are now adjacent to Eagle Crest, the ones the roads go through, do you plan or are you now in the process of acquiring that public land through land exchanges? DEWOLF: I would prefer it if we don't get into a dialogue back and forth, so please respond to these questions at the end and put these in writing for us as well. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 41 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 My next question is, how big is this new lake or pond going to be, acreage -wise? I understand that it could be a pond or a lake; we'd just like to know. That's it. DANIEL BARNES: I live across Highway 126 from the Shrader's. I notice in all the impact studies that there has never been a litter impact study done. But that's one thing that happens with that many people. All the folks who come to Eagle Crest like to eat at the fast food places, and the litter ends up on our property. I want to say up front that I'm not opposed to Eagle Crest. They're really not that bad a neighbor, although I came to the area I think like the Shraders did, looking for a rural experience. I'm a native Oregonian and just kind of wanted to live out in the country. All of a sudden this city has come to our neighborhood. I don't want to say I'm here just to oppose growth, because I'm not. But I do have two concerns that I feel are very important and they've been addressed quite a bit. One is the issue of water, and I'm concerned that my well will be pumped down by Eagle Crest to the point where it becomes non-functional for us. We'll be assured that this can't happen, but we've seen it happen on the Columbia Basin when Saber Farms moved in and started circle sprinklers. In a few years all the rural farms began to notice that they didn't have water anymore. LUKE: What do your well logs show? I have no well logs. It's just a concern. Secondly, we have a situation here where we do have what I would call a major city developing in Eagle Crest, and a city without a sewage treatment plant is a very bad situation. Let's think about it a little bit, logically. Any of you who has property in the area who has ever driven in a fence post, you know that the ground situation there is tough. When they drilled my well, the first eighteen inches was soil, and the next ninety feet was solid basalt. If you're going to continue to pump that amount of sewage effluent into a surface situation like that, I believe you'd have to be a fool to not realize that it is going to end up where it doesn't belong eventually. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 42 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 BARNES: I think that it is probably essential to this development that we don't get the cart before the horse; and we need a sewage treatment plant up and running to take care of the effluent there. Until that happens, we shouldn't be occupying the homes that are going to be developed there. I don't know if any of you here spend much time out there, but that gray section (detailed on the oversized map) that they are showing as a proposed area is already underway. It's excavated, roads are in, and they are just continuing as if it's no big deal. I feel that they have been really cavalier in their attitude towards their neighbors. We are involved with them. I think most of us don't hate them; I don't. I like to ride mountain bikes on their paths, and they've got some nice facilities. But I'm concerned about Phase III, and I've heard about Phase VIII. I don't know what their plans are. DEWOLF: That's after they annex Bend. Could be. Well, it will probably be pretty and have lots of golf courses. But you have another issue that's involved there, too. They are surrounded by BLM land. And we've just gone through the process with BLM of dealing with off-highway vehicle usage rules. That is a big-time, off-highway vehicle usage area. I guarantee you there are going to be conflicts there. If they are talking about closing BLM lands adjacent to their area to this kind of activity, these are all things that we should have thought out ahead of time before we started making this giant development. From my perspective, I propose to you that you not allow them to continue developing until they have an adequate sewage treatment facility, not pumping it out on the ground. This business of going out and throwing lime on the ground, if it's this bad now, what's it going to be like when you get Phase III in? There are a lot of houses and people you're talking about. It is just illogical to me to think that things are going to improve with that sewage system that they have now. It's a makeshift, "get us by for now" system. I guess that's mainly my concerns; water, and are they going to take my water. I suspect they are, especially if they are going to have a big lake that evaporates who knows how many gallons a day. I don't have a problem with the golf courses because we know that situation works pretty well, since they irrigate at night and so forth. And I understand that they're not building any more golf courses. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 43 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 What are their future plans? You know, they've been really clandestine with us, in my opinion. I'm a neighbor, and this is the first time that I've received notification of any of this going on, or I would have been to a lot of it, especially the BLM issue of giving up public lands. I plan to pursue that issue further because there's a real conflict already with off-highway vehicle users there. I'm not one, but I live there and my property is adjacent to BLM. I think it's fine. We got to have places for all of those things. But what are the future plans for Eagle Crest? Is it going to get bigger and bigger? Or is this it? I don't know, no one has told me, I guess I'm just ignorant. DEWOLF: I don't think it's a matter of that. Eagle Crest operates under the same system of state laws that we all must, whether it's a destination resort or another kind of development. No one has claimed that they have done anything that is illegal according to the rules that they have to operate under. Some of the issues you have brought up are specifically related to how state law is set up. They don't choose those rules either. Our state land use laws are stricter than just about anywhere in America, and govern the way these things operate. It doesn't mean that we are always happy or that we're always best friends with our neighbors, but they do operate under a set of laws that require specific things. They operate under a different set of laws than, for instance, the City of Redmond does, for a twenty-year master plan or comprehensive plan. It's just the rules that are established by the state. And I understand those issues, and I guess that's not the point I'm trying to make. It's just that I'm trying to make the point that they've been less than forthright with the neighbors. I think that things would have gone better for them if they had been. I don't think most of us are in big opposition to them, but we just have concerns, as neighbors. If they would just be forthright with that and show us what their plans are, and show it how it impacts us, then we don't have all this anxiety. We need a sewage treatment plant there before this thing expands anymore and before there are any more people in there, because the situation they have is bad and it's only going to get worse. Logic tells you that; any of us who live there know what's in the ground there. It's not going to handle all that sewage. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 44 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: Called on Robert Wynne. WYNNE: (Off the microphone.) All of my questions have been brought up. TROY WILFORD: I live on 103rd Street. A couple of things here; first, the sewer issue. They are having problems right now. Has anyone even contacted the original sewer designer as a way of maybe fixing the problem they have? WILFORD: I'm curious about the zoning. You said right off the bat that it is zoned exclusive farm use; now we've changed it into something else. Which would lead me into the number of houses per acre they have and people in the adjoining areas. If they decide that they want to subdivide their acreages that are now five or ten acre minimums, can we now go to four houses per acre, because it was okay for them. Maybe we want to look at that as an option later on down the road. I'm looking at the map here, and it shows the Eagle Crest Phase 111 480 dark - shaded, L-shaped piece. I'm curious as to how long they've owned that. Is this part of a land swap that just occurred? We spend a lot of time out there in that country, and just recently walked out there and went, "where did our playground go?" We thought this was BLM and now all of a sudden the fences are gone, a three -lane highway is down through there, stakes and flags are everywhere; it was kind of a shocker to us. So I'm curious about that. And I see this other light -shaded BLM land between what I guess is Phase II and Phase III. I would assume that this is planned for a future land swap for Phase V or VI or some other darn thing. I'm kind of curious about the plans for that. This road was a total shock, this access road that goes clear out to the highway. I'm kind of curious as to where that is going to come from. I kind of got a view earlier on where it's going to end up on the highway. As someone else already stated, are they going to develop that or is BLM going to start selling off ten acre pieces of property off that newly -formed access road? LUKE: BLM cannot sell land. They can only trade. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 45 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WILFORD: Then I've been misinformed. I heard recently that BLM did have property out there for sale, and I haven't yet had a chance to investigate that. You said that they are putting water back in. They bought twenty-two acres of irrigation rights from somebody, so they aren't taking it out of the river in the first place, they are just leaving it in the river and are saying that those twenty-two acres of water is going to take care of all the water that is being pumped out of the ground with three golf courses and whatever. LUKE: No. That's just for this phase. WILFORD: That's going to take care of this 480 -acre phase, that twenty-two acres of irrigation water. LUKE: That was determined by the Water Resources Board. WILFORD: I just wanted to bring that up. It kind of confuses me. MONICA GRAHAM: I'm really concerned. I'm not into all this legal stuff. I'm more an artist and a dreamer. What scares me the most about what is happening here is that it is not a concern for us; it's kind of an evil thing that's happening. It's greed and money, and that's what really scares me to death. It just looks me in the eye and says that's what it's all about, greed and money; it's not about anything else. When I first came to Oregon this place was called God's country. I am wondering whose country it is becoming. To me, it looks like it is country only for the rich and the rich are squashing the residents of Oregon. I also feel there is a real threat of fire danger out here. In the beginning when the land was first developed, we were shocked to find out that land was traded for some remote place. We weren't informed about that, and we were here first. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 46 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 GRAHAM: Somehow it was acquired to build into a golf course resort without informing us first. We saw migrant workers clear the land and we were upset, but we knew we couldn't do anything about it. One of the workers accidentally threw a cigarette butt into a juniper tree and it caught on fire. When we noticed the burning tree, we called the Eagle Crest people right away so the area wouldn't burn down. We were trying to be really good neighbors because we don't mind development. But I want it stopped now; they've had enough. Right now, at this moment in time, I feel like my husband and I are being stepped on. We were here first, we were good neighbors, he was born in this country, I was born in East Berlin, then we came here and raised our children and everything. We knew when we came here that this was called high desert. In a desert, water is a valuable commodity, not for golf courses. Golf courses use way too much water. Now in the summertime we have lots of mosquitoes, and we never used to have them. I don't know what happened last summer, but it scared me. All the baby birds were dead. I had baby birds on my lawn, everywhere. I don't know what's going on. And also, in the summertime I like to sit in my chair and look at my wall by the house; the frogs go up my wall and I watch them catch the moths. One time my husband picked up a moth and put it over to the frog and the frog actually opened its mouth. But I did that this summer, and we only had about one or two or three frogs. What happened to them? What is going on here? Things are happening that I don't understand. DALY: Where do you live in relation to Eagle Crest? u The beginning of the road that leads to nowhere, out by Shrader's. I don't understand your map. You send them, and if we want a big one we have to spend money, and I don't have the money to spend for that. You don't make those maps specific. The other day I took a walk up to the gravel pit. I like to walk. I see all these people building all these beautiful houses with streets. I don't know why they are doing that when they could build their houses in town, because they don't want to walk. Up at the gravel pit there were stakes all over there, too. In the wintertime my kids and my husband used to go sledding down that hill. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 47 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 GRAHAM: When I walked back down the hill, it was weird. It was the strangest thing. A white Explorer with a happy elderly couple was driving this way, followed by another white Explorer with a man inside. I was looking at them, wondering where they were going. I knew there was nothing there. They were smiling, and I'm not smiling. What are they doing there? Then I realized that was probably a prospective buyer. They were showing the place around. The problem is that when you show somebody land like that, once it's sold it's not going to be what it was in the beginning. See what I mean? You see something, you buy it, and all of a sudden when you live on it it's gone. That's what has happened to Eagle Crest now. It was a beautiful area, they developed it, and it's not the same anymore. It's completely changed. It's now a place for the rich. I can't go there. They call me on the phone to ask if I want to come visit, but they want to know how much money I make. I don't make enough money to even go. And when they get me there, all they want is for me to watch a video game. They aren't going to drive me around. All they want is my money, and that's what I'm afraid of. All this is about is money and greed. If they would really look at it and think of the people and not step on us, and be honest with us, I'd be fine with it. But I'm honest. I don't want any more development. They have enough. I want it stopped. And that's it. DEWOLF: Called for Gary Mason, who did not respond. STEVE FOX: I own the Cline Butte Rock pit, and I'm a contractor for Eagle Crest. I don't oppose it at all, but I want it on record that the gravel pit is there and I just don't want to get squeezed out. LUKE: Where is it in relation to Eagle Crest? Minutes of Public Hearing Eagle Crest III Expansion Page 48 of 66 Pages Tuesday, April 10, 2001 FOX: It's right above Eagle Crest. The Eagle Crest development borders the backside. I don't want the pit squeezed out after they get it all developed, and say that now it's got to go. I access the property from Cline Falls Highway. I'm not opposed to it, and I do a lot of work out there. I have sixty acres of mining rights. It's gravel, dirt and big boulders. It makes state specs. LUKE: Is there a tower there? FOX: It's in the back area, on the other side of it. DEWOLF: Called for Carol Mitchell; she did not respond. LARRY ROSHAK: I live in Eagle Ridge, and am an owner there. I have concerns also. Part of it is that I don't feel they are honest with us all of the time. Part of that has to do with the fact that when I originally bought our lot, we were guaranteed that there would be no further expansion. DEWOLF: Do you have that in writing? ROSHAK: No. Just verbal. But there are a lot of other people who were told the same thing. My concern is that right now Eagle Ridge is probably less than half full of houses now. If we are having this much problem with our sewage now in a dry winter, what's going to happen when it's full? Without any further expansion. Also, my concern is traffic. The roads that are built in there are probably not roads that would meet specs for county roads. If we are going to be pulling traffic in across there from Phase III, what is that going to do? The water problem is also my concern. We received in writing a letter from the Cline Butte Utility Company, which is owned by Eagle Crest or Jeld Wen or someone, but they own it and we were told that we could only water every other day, and if we watered more than that we would be fined. So there's a concern about water by them. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 49 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 ROSHAK: If they are concerned about the water and would send out something like that, I feel that drilling another well in the aquifer, is that helping us any in adding this number of houses. And the question on the lake - how big is the lake, and where is the water going to come from for the lake. DEWOLF: To answer one of your questions on the odd and even days for watering, they have the same system in a lot of places around the country, and Bend in particular. And it's not the capacity of the water in the aquifer that's at issue; it's the capacity of the facilities to bring that water up. In the City of Bend, if everybody watered every day, some people would turn their sprinklers on in the morning and turn them off when they get home at night, you end up going from a city usage of twenty million gallons a day to thirty million gallons a day, which would overload the system. That's the reason for that. It's not specific to Eagle Crest. ROSHAK: But the golf courses water every day, and they are doing that now. So, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. DEWOLF: Bend Park and Rec also waters Drake Park when the rest of us can't. ROSHAK: I do live there. Like I say, I have concerns because if they tell me they are going to do something, I'll believe it when it happens. I do not trust them. LUKE: Is there anyone else who has not signed up who would like to testify? (No response was received.) TERRY BENNETT: I am a resident of the Ridge. As a matter of fact, my lot is approximately 200 feet from this disastrous subsurface sewage treatment system. Just a little background so you'll know where I'm coming from. I will be brief. When I bought my property I was given a HUD report. In the HUD report it is stated that there is a subsurface sewage treatment system 2,400 feet from the subdivision. It's 200 feet from my backyard. Also, since people are questioning some of the honesty of Eagle Crest, and it's been brought up before - - - Minutes of Public Hearing Page 50 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: I would ask that you be careful here. Please don't make any disparaging remarks here. Also I would ask of you, if you've got that HUD report that states that it is 2,400 feet away, when in reality it's 200 feet away, that would be good to submit into the record. TERRY BENNETT: (He showed an oversized map.) This is a master plan map from 1998, which shows that no subsurface system was in place. It was there. It was put in the ground and finished in June of 2000. It is on the map. The point is, how do we know when Eagle Crest tells us something? How do we make decisions? I made a poor decision with the information they gave me. Moving on to sewage. I have grand knowledge about sewage now. I know more about sewage than I ever cared to. I've got four spills documented. (He read from Department of Environmental Quality letters, attached as Exhibit E. These letters are dated September 14, 2000, March 23, 2001, March 30, 2001 and April 6, 2001.) Eagle Crest claimed rocks are the problem. We've heard that before. It is a design flaw. DEWOLF: Rocks may in fact be true. TERRY BENNETT: It's a design flaw in any case. Let's fix it. I'm suffering the consequences. There were four or five spills documented during the past nine months. DEWOLF: You should submit these into the record. LUKE: They have been up front that DEQ is now on top of this. They're not going to let it slide. TERRY BENNETT: I just wanted you to be aware that we are having an extreme amount of spills out there. You want to know what got everybody excited, after us telling Eagle Crest, trying to deal with Eagle Crest, complaining to Eagle Crest? We tried to deal with Eagle Crest for over a year. They have not been responsible, gentlemen; all this talk that they have told you about being responsible, watching this, taking care of things, is not true. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 51 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 TERRY BENNETT: Saturday, March 7, Bend Bulletin. Baby, did the action start. This got everybody going. Today before I came down here there were two tractors, four or five pickup trucks and four or five guys were working out there. What they have been telling you about reacting to this situation is not true, until it got into the media. Remember, gentlemen. I look out my living room, kitchen, dining area and bedroom windows at this drainfield. They just now are taking some action. This is what it took to get Eagle Crest going, because they know that Eagle Crest III rides on this. I'm begging you, do not let these people pump more sewage from Phase III into these fields. They malfunction, they are failing, and they do not work; that is a fact. Roger Everett went easy on them. These systems fail. We feel that Eagle Crest should at least show everybody concerned no less than a 24 -month period of running some sort of sewage facility system problem -free before any expansion is allowed and before any further development is allowed, especially from Phase III. They'll blow us right out of homes. DALY: Are you convinced that Phase III is going to run all of their sewage into Phase II? TERRY BENNETT: It is documented, sir. That's what they want to do. They want to run Phase III sewage into Phase II drainfields. Phase II drainfields are already failing. As far as the connection with Redmond goes, Eagle Crest does not really have a set timetable for a connection. They don't know. No one knows. For them to even mention perhaps a year or eighteen months, they do not have any idea. We've tried to find out, but there is no set time. Yet, I admit that's the best solution. Phase III should be delayed until that or a treatment system is built. The idea that Eagle Crest trouble -shoots just started March 7. They never trouble- shoot on weekends. We have to call them. We called Cline Butte Utility about problems on the weekend when the resort is at capacity. It took us a while to figure out what was going on, because we didn't know it was subsurface sewage treatment system when we bought our property. It took a while to put the pieces together. On numerous occasions we called Cline Butte Utility; there actually should be more documented spills, but they don't document their spills. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 52 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 TERRY BENNETT: My family's economics have been destroyed due to this sewage problem. Don't let Eagle Crest bury our problem with them in what economic gains they offer to the community. Don't let them just throttle the little guy. We have been economically destroyed. We want to sell our house and can't. I have a job offer out of state and I can't sell my house because I have to fully disclose the problem. I've also had to hire a lawyer. As far as economics go, remember the little guy out there, too. Eagle Crest is really not a good neighbor. They just want to run over people. They are just bullies if you don't go along. If you don't buy into their program they are going to try to intimidate and bully you; Eagle Crest is not a good neighbor. One last thing. They say only liquids are being pumped into those fields. On April 5, 2001, I took a photo of human feces on top of the soil. There's solid waste going through that system, gentlemen. Me, my wife and our two children live next to this. Please shut down Phase III. ROBIN BENNETT: I live at 486 Nutcracker Drive in Redmond. I could repeat what husband said; but I have other concerns. First of all I would like to comment on Alan Van Vliet's reference to this hearing in the Bulletin. Maybe I read this wrong, but I am disturbed that Mr. Van Vliet considers our voices, our concerns and this hearing not terribly significant. Maybe if you had built your home on a lot that was described as having a great common area right behind it, and were encouraged to use it with your children only to find out later that the area in fact is sub -surface sewage disposal for the entire Phase II development. My children played in that field with me when we first moved into our house. We did not know what we were walking in. I have pictures of feces effluent that we walked in. (Her photos were then submitted into the record.) Some of these photos were taken on April 5, and some were taken on March 18. I have videotape footage of spillage that I can turn in also, if necessary. We were sold into a lifestyle that has been false and misleading from the beginning. Last year we decided to sell our house and move. In the last year we have been inundated with the disgusting smell of raw sewage on seven different occasions, several of which have been documented by the DEQ. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 53 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 ROBIN BENNETT: We have to disclose this knowledge of smells and spills to potential buyers. Do you think we're going to be able to sell our house? I feel all of the value of the homes out there has been destroyed by this. Our most recent spill was March 24, 2001. We finally perked some interest - no pun intended. On Thursday, April 5, 2001, Tom Hall; Dick Nichols; Bob Baggett of DEQ; Tom Walker of W & H Pacific, the engineers for the subsurface sewage disposal; Charlie Chafin (spelling unknown), investigator for the State Board of Realtors; Roger Everett, Deschutes County Environmental Health; Rick Shrader; Gordon Welborn and myself met in the sewer right behind our home to discuss why we keep having these spills. Note that this usually happens when the resort is at full capacity. An example, spring 2000, Easter 2000, Memorial Day 2000, Father's Day 2000, Fourth of July 2000, Labor Day 2000 - many of these have been documented by DEQ. I also made notations to it. I asked Cline Butte Utility if they had documented all the calls that I had made in regard to the spills, and they said they do not document that information. Finally, March 24, 2001. Two of these spills have been because rock "likely" got into the system. Others have been to overflow. We walked around out in the field and talked about what was happening, why it was happening and what can be done. Meanwhile, we are trying to sell our house and we do have to disclose this, so keep that in mind. At this time effluent from Phase II is being sent to Phase I, because Phase II's systems can't handle the volume. This week in Phase I, it stunk by the sports center. The sewer area pretty much disgusted everybody. There were signs of surfacing effluents all over. There was dead grass here and there from the effluent surfacing and killing it. At one point, Dick Nichols of DEQ showed me an area that was covered with this black, slimy muck. He asked if I knew what it was. And I said, poop? And he said yes. It was diluted feces all over this area as well as in other areas. Keep in mind that this is 200 feet behind my home in an area I was told to be a common area. Once again, my children and I played in this area at our Realtor's encouragement. This is prior to knowing what it really was. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 54 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 ROBIN BENNETT: I propose that Eagle Crest put Phase III and all future development, homes, the spa, restrooms, put those on hold and prove to us, the public, DEQ and EPA and Deschutes County that they can operate a system efficiently, effectively without any spills for at least 24 months. I plead with you to stop the continuing flow of feces behind my home. AMBERS THORNBURGH: My family and I have the only land adjoining Eagle Crest Phase III. (He referred to a white area in the oversized map) We also have a total of about 2,000 acres fairly close to it. I don't have a problem as long as they can take care of their problems. From the sound of things, they have a lot of sewer problems. The gentlemen talked a little while ago about bikers and stuff going in the area. We have a lot of trouble with bikers because everyone thinks it's all BLM. But that's something we have to fight with. The only problem I have, and I talked with Alan a few minutes ago, was the fact that we've owned this since 1953. It's been a legal rock pit since about 1926. There's 160 acres. We may have used one-tenth of it. We don't want land being sold to people without them knowing that this is an active rock pit, and trying to stop it. I talked with Alan a few minutes ago, and he said that anyone who buys property up there has to sign a thing saying that the rock pit is there. I didn't know that until I came today or I probably wouldn't have come. LUKE: We passed that in the 1995 legislature, that people who are moving next to something like that have to sign something to that effect. THORNBURGH: Basically, I have no complaints as long as they can take care of their problems. I just don't want them making problems for me. TERI FAST: I live at 1200 NW 101 S` Street, across Highway 126 from where this area is. I have a number of questions that I would like answers to. Someone mentioned earlier that 1,500 acres were proposed to be closed, adjacent to Phase III. Is that true? BLM land, will it be closed or traded? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 55 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 LUKE: That's a public process. If BLM ever decides to do something like that, it will be a public process and there will be public input. If you are concerned, you should write them to so that you can be placed on a mailing list to be advised of any upcoming actions. FAST: I would also like to know what land Eagle Crest did trade with BLM. What was the exchange? They had to give something to get something. I was here at the last hearing and gave testimony, so I've been receiving some of the information. One of the letters that I got made a statement that there are eighteen phases proposed, and it has been okayed or something. I'm open for clarification on that. DEWOLF: No matter who the developer is, they may have within their own plans different phases. They all have to go through the same land use process, which is a very public process. FAST: My concern is if the ultimate goal of Eagle Crest is eighteen phases and they are considering using the Redmond sewage system, it stands to reason that it would make more sense to have their own sewage treatment plant to handle whatever their ultimate plans are. My personal belief is that money talks, and they have a lot of money, so they're probably already working on Phase IV and Phase V. I think the adjacent road to Highway 126 will be just one extra way for them to say that they already have an access road and that they will trade further lands with BLM, and here comes Phase IV or Phase V. I think that's already in the works. I would like to know what type of amenities are planned for Phase III. At one point there was talk about a golf course; my understanding tonight is that it's not on the plans now. There were comments about some kind of commercial center or stores or something like that; I would like definite information on whether that is halted. Because I live there, and I'm dealing with the issue of, as they said at the last hearing, something about the possibility of an additional 3,600 cars at peak traffic. If you figure that maybe 18 hours out of the day people are driving, if people want to go ski or go to Redmond, they are going to go right by my house. I border 126th Minutes of Public Hearing Page 56 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 FAST: It breaks down to about four additional cars per minute if they all go that direction. That's in addition to what already goes by on that highway, which I think someone said was about 11,000 per day now. That traffic has increased dramatically since we bought our property; it's not even the same world that we bought into four years ago. I really dread an additional two years. I would also like to know what type of intersection at 126 and the access road that they are talking about. I would hope, and it's my understanding, that they were trying to get this section of 126 changed to be an expressway. LUKE: It is. FAST: Does that mean they can put in a stoplight? LUKE: No; an expressway means it is limited access. FAST: So, are they going to put a left-hand turn lane or what is going to go in there? We have a turn lane in front of our place right now. And it's really difficult at this point sometimes to make a left hand turn to go to Redmond. We're looking at a lot of increased traffic on that. I would like answers to all these issues. We were out there the other day. My husband does a lot of motorcycling. We also mountain bike. We also run our dogs, and we also hike. We use that area a lot. There has been someone out there doing a lot of work with some big machines, and they are assuming that everything is hunky-dory and they are going forward with it. I don't think that they are ready for that. There are too many things that are coming up. I am concerned with the fact that they may eventually say that the people who buy here who have the money, will tell us that they don't want us riding motorcycles or running your dogs, or doing anything that doesn't appeal to the people who have purchased there. They are going to start closing down land. The problem is there is a whole bunch of people in this area who use that triangle area between Redmond, Sisters and Bend as a playground. There's a lot of dispute within those groups, but they are making it work and are taking their own little areas. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 57 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 FAST: I think that Eagle Crest has too much money for the rest of us, and they are eventually going to close that area up. I feel really sorry for the people who use it. I feel very, very sorry for the animals that are our there, getting squeezed into smaller and smaller areas. I just want some answers. I don't think Eagle Crest is ready for Phase III, they have a long way to go yet. And I think a sewer system treatment plant is by far the best idea, because they are not going to stop at Phase III; they are going to go on. If they keep adding it to Redmond, Redmond is going to have to get very, very big, and that's when they increase the taxes and a whole bunch of other things. DEWOLF: That's all I have signed up. Is there anybody else who has anything they'd like to add? No further public testimony was offered. DEWOLF: I'll give Eagle Crest a little time to respond to some of this tonight, and I would appreciate it if anything you don't cover completely tonight to be responded to in writing. Again, what we'll be doing is leaving the record open for people to add additional written response to anything that is stated now by the attorney for Eagle Crest. Feel free to do that as well. NANCY CRAVEN: I will try to answer as many questions as I can tonight. I think Alan can respond to some of them as well, and Tom (Van Vliet), I presume you can help us out. LUKE: Before you begin, can we pass around another sheet for people to sign up to receive information by mail? (A pad of paper was left on the table for people to complete.) CRAVEN: I will respond in writing to many of these questions. Let me start by answering some of the questions presented by Mrs. Shrader. First of all, there was response by DEQ to her request that the permit for Eagle Crest be revoked. DEQ, in their March 30 letter, which was put into the record, indicated that they would not revoke any of Eagle Crest's permits. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 58 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CRAVEN: There have been comments by one or more with regard to the actions Eagle Crest has taken out on its property. Eagle Crest had an effective and approved final land use permits for quite some time on this property, and acted lawfully under those permits. When the decision was made that this needed to come back for review with additional notice, consistent with the LUBA decision, we stopped acting on the private property and haven't been constructing on the property after the legal decision was reached. The actions Eagle Crest has taken have always been lawful. The noise study that you'll see in the record addresses the topographical issues that Mrs. Shrader raised. I think you'll see that vegetation, road layout and topographical differences between the road and her home were dealt with in the noise study. There has been misinformation with regard to the road numbers. When you look at the record, you need to be clear that the assumptions with regard to the use of access road are that 40% of the traffic will use that road, so the 3,600 number is the complete full build -out, ten year traffic number for Eagle Crest, with only 40% of that going through the access road to Highway 126. The access point at Highway 126 has been dealt with by ODOT in a contract with Eagle Crest. ODOT has discretion to determine what kind of improvements will be made to 126 in terms of acceleration and deceleration, and Eagle Crest is obligated to make those improvements. DALY: You don't know what those are yet? CRAVEN: It will be determined by ODOT depending on the usage of the road. When the usage of the road gets to a point where they determine those kind of improvements are necessary, then we're obligated to make them. That's what is provided for in the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with ODOT. The internal roads in Eagle Crest are constructed consistent with County standards, are designed and reviewed by the County, and we build them how the County tells us to. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 59 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: Those are private roads that are maintained by Eagle Crest, I assume. CRAVEN: But they are built to County standards. We obtained the Eagle Crest property through acquisition; this was not BLM land. So all of this discussion about how we got the land and that kind of thing - it was a private acquisition. The eighteen phases that were referred to are the internal sequencing of development within Phase III. It was just the numbers of the pods within Phase III. There is no eighteen -phase plan; that was just internal numbering of cul-de-sac development areas within Phase III. DEWOLF: So you are saying that there are no plans for further development beyond Phase III. CRAVEN: I think Alan can address that with regard to both BLM discussions and other information. ALAN VAN VLIET: We have not had any further discussions with BLM in regard to any exchanges. In the original CMP hearing, they brought up the possibility of exchanges. The only thing that they've stated lately, and they did call me, was that any exchanges would be part of an urban interface plan. Everything is in the upper Deschutes management plan, which is what they are going to be working on over the next two years. So, that will address all compatibilities for uses - off-road, equestrian, bicycles, you name it. It's basically a recreation plan that BLM is going to be working on for the next couple of years. Anybody who's interested in working with BLM on that should contact BLM. LUKE: They are doing the same thing on lands south of the fairgrounds. Minutes of Public Hearing Eagle Crest III Expansion Page 60 of 66 Pages Tuesday, April 10, 2001 VAN VLIET: As far as amenities are concerned, they will have a small sports center with workout facilities, an outdoor pool, spa, kids' pool, and probably a small food and beverage operation that would help support just the people who are visiting the pool area. The lake size is currently at 1.25 acres; it's not very big. The water would come from a part of our quasi -municipal rights. It will be a focal point of a park area with circulating stream; that's kind of what we have envisioned. We're looking at an interpretive center for wildlife. We would have interpretive gardens and a trail that would go around the area; also a trail that connects with the rest of the system. There would be an equestrian facility on west edge of the property. TOM WALKER: Just a quick response on some of the sewer issues. There was talk about a sewage treatment plant on site. That's clearly one of the mandates within the WCPF permit that's issued by DEQ. They clearly set thresholds, and when we reach a certain threshold we are obligated to put a sewage treatment plant on site and operate it. Again, that's one of the options that we need to maintain. The second option is to go to Redmond. DEWOLF: If you go to Redmond, you wouldn't be doing your own sewer treatment plant; you'd be using Redmond's. WALKER: That's exactly correct. DALY: Are you saying that Phase III will not be using drainfields; it will be using a sewage treatment plant? WALKER: The permit is set up under DEQ jurisdiction to allow drainfield use up to a certain threshold flow. At that point, it is predetermined in our permit from DEQ, we are obligated to either construct the sewage treatment plant or go to Redmond. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 61 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 LUKE: What are you doing with the effluent from Phase III? What's your plan currently? WALKER: Our plan is to dispose of the effluent from Eagle Crest III exactly the way the DEQ tells us to. Again, we have two options. One is to go to Redmond, which is our preferred option and that's what we expect to do, but we have not inked a deal with the City of Redmond. I cannot represent that we're going to do that. The other option is again to follow the formula that DEQ has already set for us, and if need be construct a sewage treatment plant at the resort and operate it. LUKE: If Phase III starts up, and you start to build three or four houses, where will their affluent go? Is it going to go into Phase II? WALKER: Sure. The collection systems are expected to be connected. Absolutely. MRS. BARRETT: (Off the microphone.) I would like clarification on that. They are beating around the bush. If Phase III is approved, Phase III is to go into Phase II. Is that correct? Your plan right now is for Phase III to go into Phase II. WALKER: Absolutely. The collection system that's been submitted and is subject to approval with this proceeding shows the interconnection with Phase II. And treatment facilities should be all at one point, as that is the most efficient way to handle treatment facilities. And that's exactly what we propose. The only other thing I wanted to add is that we have worked closely with DEQ. DEQ has given us deadlines to respond to issues and problems, and we have a clear action plan that we have shared with DEQ. We'll continue to share those plans with DEQ. We have a short time frame to solve any problems that we have out there and to demonstrate to DEQ that we can operate our system. You suggested that DEQ is on top of it. I don't take these things lightly and neither does Eagle Crest. DEQ is on top of it, and they've given us a really short time frame to answer their questions. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 62 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DEWOLF: To be really honest, the fact that this has all come to light here recently casts a different light on these whole proceedings. Clearly the issue with the sewage is what I would suspect increased the size of the crowd in this room from what it would have been otherwise. I know for myself this is an issue I want some real specific answers to, along with whatever additional evidence and testimony you can provide on how this would be dealt with. CRAVEN: I think we fully appreciate that, and intend to not only provide to you information with regard to how we are going to solve the current problem and how we're working with DEQ to do that, but also to deal proactively with the future issues. i think we get the same message you have gotten. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off the microphone.) I have a question: who will pay for this sewer line and connection? DEWOLF: Eagle Crest would be responsible for any sewer connection with the City of Redmond, I can assure you of that. And they would be responsible for the entire 3- 1/2 miles of line. It would go much like they do in the City of Bend, when you're crossing a river, it's piped and crosses underneath the bridges. DALY: It's a pressure line. A high-pressure line. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off the microphone.) When did they start pumping into Phase I? WALKER: We do not pump into Phase I. We pump into what I called the expansion area, which is a separate system that's up on Cline Falls Highway south of the horse pasture. We initiated that diversion sometime last fall. Again, in my opinion it is an innovative sewer system, and it was actually DEQ's idea. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off the microphone) You do realize that we have had problems down by the rec center since last year. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 63 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 WALKER: I do recognize that. In fact, we have just recently done some improvements to the odor filter, and hopefully that's been solved. MR. BARR.ETT: (Off the microphone.) Are they going to have to show for a certain time period that this system is functioning properly before they can begin building? Or, is it going to be, hey, we fixed it, it works, let's go. DEWOLF: You and Robin have both put that into your testimony, and it's part of the record. I would anticipate that Eagle Crest will respond to that in the information that they place into the record. I can't tell you what we're going to decide, each of us individually on what conditions, if any, we would place if we were to move forward with this. DEWOLF: We're human, too, but we do our best to keep an open mind to take in the testimony that's offered to us and render the best decision that we can. None of us is a lawyer or is trained as a lawyer, but we do pay attention to lawyers on both side of this, and our own attorney as well. We do our best to make sure that we respect our charge, and that is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Deschutes County. That's what I can offer you. MR. BARRETT: (Off the microphone.) So in other words, you could make a decision to wait and see this thing function for a period of time. DEWOLF: I don't know if we can at this point. That is a question we would pose to our attorney, if that's the direction we wanted to move. DALY: I'd like to bring up one point. In my other life, before I used to do this, I installed septic systems for 18 years. I'm very familiar with the system that they are using here. I want to assure all of you that they can't con me. So I will be sure it is going to be functioning properly before we approve anything out there. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 64 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 MONICA GRAHAM: (Off the microphone.) Do they have the right of way for the line? DEWOLF: There's been no agreement reached yet between Eagle Crest and the City of Redmond, so the answer to that would be no. If that were approved, it would be part of their agreement with Redmond. I want to again point out that we will leave the record open for fourteen days for anyone who wants to submit any additional written testimony. This will close at 5:00 p.m. on April 24, 2001, and no further testimony will be taken after that date and time. The testimony should be delivered to this office, right across the hall where most of you came in. The applicant will then have seven days until 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2001, to respond. This Board will then set a date for its decision shortly after that time based on the amount of additional material that has been submitted. I want to thank everyone this evening for their courtesy and patience. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off the microphone.) I have a question. They say they stopped working on the Eagle Crest III development; but I would say that as of maybe a week ago, I think they continued moving heavy equipment around. DEWOLF: I want to tell you that this doesn't really have any impact on me one way or the other, because it is Eagle Crest's property and they have the right to move heavy equipment around just as you would on your property. That doesn't impact our decision one way or another. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off the microphone) Does Eagle Crest have plan for further expansion after Phase III? VAN VLIET: (Off the microphone) Not at this time. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 65 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 Being no further issues brought before the Board, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at T: 20 p. m. DATED this 10th of April 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom D�eWolf, Chair ATTEST: (t�ZLJ&' Recording Secretary De is R. Luke, C m'ssioner Minutes of Public Hearing Page 66 of 66 Pages Eagle Crest III Expansion Tuesday, April 10, 2001 CITY OF REDMOND April 10, 2001 DESCHUTES CO BD OF COMMISSIONERS 1130 NW HARRIMAN BEND OR 97701-1925 Re: Eagle Crest Sewer Connection with the City of Redmond Dear Commissioners: 716 SW Evergreen PO Box 726 Redmond, OR 97756-0100 (541)923-7710 Fax: (541) 548-0706 E-mail: info@redmond.or.us Web site: www.redmond.or.us On behalf of the City of Redmond, I am writing to update you with regard to the opportunities to extend sewer facilities from the City of Redmond to Eagle Crest Resort. The City of Redmond has expanded its waste water treatment facilities, and now has the capacity to accommodate the growth of the city and to provide services on a more regional basis. Over the past year, city staff and representatives from Eagle Crest Resort have been discussing the technical and economic feasibility of extending sewer to the resort. The City is aware that Eagle Crest has included the option of tying into the City's system as an alternative in its land use application to Deschutes County. We are presently undertaking design review of our sewer system facilities in order to accept effluent from Eagle Crest. Further, we are continuing to refine the terms of an extension to Eagle Crest. We will continue to work with Eagle Crest and expect that we will finalize our rate study and related Eagle Crest extension analysis within the next two months. Following the conclusion of the rate study, we expect that an agreement will be concluded so that effluent from Eagle Crest can be treated at the city's facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 548-2151. Respectfully, Edward Fitch Mayor Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Cover photographs: Top: Steelhead Falls on the Deschutes River near Crooked River Ranch, Oregon. Middle: Crooked River Canyon at Crooked River Ranch, Oregon. Bottom: North and Middle Sister with a wheel -line irrigation system in the foreground near Sisters, Oregon. (Photographs by Rodney R. Caldwell, U.S. Geological Survey.) fi U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon BY MARSHALL W. GANNETT, KENNETH E. LITE JR., DAVID S. MORGAN, AND CHARLES A. COLLINS Water -Resources Investigations Report 00-4162 Prepared in cooperation with Oregon Water Resources Department; cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters; Deschutes and Jefferson Counties; The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Portland, Oregon: 2001 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information contact: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Portland, OR 97216-3159 E-mail: info-or@usgs.gov Internet: http://oregon.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Copies of this report can be purchased from: USGS Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 Telephone:1-888-ASK-USGS Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001, Ground -water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 00-4162, 78 p. i d�' CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................2 Backgroundand Study Objectives....................................................................................................................................2 Purposeand Scope............................................................................................................................................................3 StudyArea.........................................................................................................................................................................3 Approach...........................................................................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................................................8 GeologicFramework...................................................................................................................................................................8 Geologic Controls on Regional Ground -Water Flow.......................................................................................................9 Hydraulic Characteristics of Subsurface Materials.........................................................................................................13 AquiferTests.........................................................................................................................................................14 Well -Yield Tests...................................................................................................................................................18 Ground -Water Recharge...........................................................................................................................................................19 Infiltrationof Precipitation..............................................................................................................................................19 CanalLeakage.................................................................................................................................................................23 On -Farm Losses..............................................................................................................................................................27 StreamLeakage...............................................................................................................................................................28 DrainageWells................................................................................................................................................................39 InterbasinFlow...............................................................................................................................................................40 Ground -Water Discharge..........................................................................................................................................................41 Ground -Water Discharge to Streams..............................................................................................................................41 Geographic Distribution of Ground -Water Discharge to Streams........................................................................42 Temporal Variations in Ground -Water Discharge to Streams..............................................................................47 Ground -Water Discharge to Wells..................................................................................................................................53 IrrigationWells.....................................................................................................................................................53 Public -Supply Wells.............................................................................................................................................53 PrivateDomestic Wells.........................................................................................................................................56 Ground -Water Discharge to Evapotranspiration.............................................................................................................58 Ground -Water Elevations and Flow Directions........................................................................................................................58 HorizontalGround -Water Flow......................................................................................................................................59 VerticalGround -Water Flow..........................................................................................................................................61 Fluctuations in Ground -Water Levels.......................................................................................................................................64 Large -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations...........................................................................................................................64 Local -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations............................................................................................................................65 Summaryand Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................73 ReferencesCited .......................................................................................................................................................................75 FIGURES 1.— 6. Maps showing: 1. Location of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and major geographic and cultural features ..............................4 2. Location of field -located wells and land ownership in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon..................................5 3. Lines of equal precipitation and graphs of mean monthly precipitation for selected precipitation stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.......................................................................................................7 4. Generalized geology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon................................................................................10 5. Distribution of transmissivity estimates derived from specific -capacity tests of field -located domestic wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and the locations of aquifer tests conducted for this study .,.........15 6. Deep Percolation Model grid and estimated recharge from infiltration of precipitation, 1993-95 ......................20 7.— 8. Graphs showing: 7. Annual mean components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model forwater years 1962-97........................................................................................................................................22 8. Mean monthly components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model forwater years 1962-97........................................................................................................................................23 9. Map showing mean annual recharge from canal leakage and on-farm losses in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95.........................................................................................................................................................24 10. Graph showing annual canal diversions and estimated annual mean canal leakage in the Deschutes upper Basin, Oregon, 1905-97..............................................................................................................................................28 11.-12. Maps showing: 11. Location of selected stream -gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon............................................32 12. Estimated gain and loss flux rates and net gains and losses for selected stream reaches in the upper DeschutesBasin, Oregon......................................................................................................................................37 13. Graph showing relation between monthly mean losses along the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Lava Island and flow at Benham Falls.................................................................................................................38 14.-15. Hydrographs showing: 14. Mean monthly flows of selected nonregulated streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon ..........................42 15. Monthly mean flow of the Metolius River near Grandview.................................................................................43 16.-17. Graphs showing: 16. Gain in flow of the lower Crooked River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles27 and 7, July 1994......................................................................................................................................45 17. Gain in flow of the Deschutes River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 165 and 120, May 1992 and May 1994 ............................................. ................................................................... 45 18. Diagrammatic section showing the effect of geology on ground -water discharge along the Deschutes fiver upstreamof Pelton Dam..............................................................................................................................................46 19. Graph showing cumulative departure from normal annual mean flows of selected streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1947-91.......................................................................................................................................................................49 20. Hydrograph showing October mean flows of the Metolius River, Jefferson Creek, and Whitewater River, upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1984-97..................................................................................................................49 21. Graph showing approximate August mean ground -water discharge to the middle Deschutes River between Bend and Culver, based on the difference between August mean streamflows at gages below Bend and nearCulver, 1954-97..................................................................................................................................................51 22. Hydrograph showing monthly mean flows of the Crooked River at the gage below Opal Springs, 1962-97.......................................................................................................................................................................51 23.-24. Graphs showing: 23. August mean flows of the Crooked River below Opal Springs, the Metolius River near Grandview, and estimated annual mean leakage from irrigation canals, 1905-97..................................................................52 24. Estimated annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97.................................................................................................................................................................54 25. Map showing estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section....................................................................................................................55 26. Graph showing estimated annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97..............................................................................................................................................56 27.-28. Maps showing: 27. Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section..............................................................................................................57 28. Generalized lines of equal hydraulic head and ground -water flow directions in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon........................................................................................................................................................60 29. Diagrammatic section southwest -northeast across the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, showing flow directions and lines of equal hydraulic head...............................................................................................................62 30. Map showing generalized lines of equal hydraulic head for shallow and deep water -bearing zones in the central part of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.....................................................................................................63 31.-32. Hydrographs showing: 31. Static wateC levels in two long-term observation wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1962-98 .................................64 32. Variations in static water levels of selected wells at various distances from the Cascade Range, 1994-98................................................................................................................................................................66 33. Maps showing year-to-year changes in March static water levels in observation wells in the upper DeschutesBasin, Oregon, 1994-98............................................................................................................................67 Iv 34.-40. Hydrographs showing: 34. Static water -level variations in a shallow well and a deep well in the La Pine subbasin, Oregon .......................68 35. Relation between static water -level variations in a deep well near Bend, Oregon, and flow rate 69 ina nearby irrigation canal.................................................................................................................................... 36. Relation between static water -level variations in a well near Redmond, Oregon, and flow rate 69 ina nearby irrigation canal................................................................................................................................... 37. Relation between static water -level variations in two wells at different distances from the Deschutes River and stage of the river at Benham Falls.......................................................................................70 38. Relation between monthly mean discharge of Fall River and static water -level variation ih a well near Sisters, Oregon, 1962-97.....................................................................................................................70 39. Static water level in an unused irrigation well near Lower Bridge, showing seasonal pumping effects from nearby irrigation wells and long-term climatic effects.....................................................................72 40. Water levels in two wells near Round Butte Dam, showing the rise in ground -water elevations caused by the filling of Lake Billy Chinook.........................................................................................................72 TABLES 1. Summary of selected aquifer tests in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.................................................................16 2. Statistics for transmissivities estimated from specific -capacity data for subareas in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon..............................................................................................................................................................18 3. Weather stations used for estimation of recharge from infiltration of precipitation with the DeepPercolation Model..............................................................................................................................................21 4. Canal diversions, irrigated acreage, on-farm deliveries, and canal leakage, by major canal service area, upperDeschutes Basin, Oregon, 1994........................................................................................................................27 5. Gain/loss measurements of major streams obtained from Oregon Water Resources Department seepage runs, upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.........................................................................................................................30 6. Station numbers, names, and mean annual flow for selected gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.........................................................................................................................................................................3 3 7. Estimated stream gains and losses due to ground -water exchange, upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon ........................34 8. Statistical summaries of selected nonregulated streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon................................48 CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM Multiply By To obtain inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) acre 4,047 square meter (m2) square mile (mit) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) acre-foot (acre -ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) inches per year (in./yr) 0.0254 meters per year (m/yr) feet per day (fdd) 3.528 x 10-6 meters per second (m/s) gallon per minute (gal/min) 6.308 x 10-5 cubic meters per second (m3/s) square feet per day (ft2/d) 1.075 x 10 square meters per second (m2/s) feet per year (ft/yr) 9.659 x 10-9 meters per second (m/s) acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) 3.909 x 10-5 cubic meters per second (m3/s) cubic feet per day per square foot (ft3/d/ft2) 3.528 x 10-6 cubic meters per second per square meter (m3/s/m2) gallons per day (gaud) 4.381 x 10-$ cubic meters per second (m3/s) feet per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=1.8 °C+32 Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first -order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929. LOCATION SYSTEM The system used for locating wells, springs, and surface -water sites in this report is based on the rectangular system for subdivision of public land. The State of Oregon is divided into townships of 36 square miles numbered according to their location relative to the east -west Willamette baseline and a north -south Willamette meridian. The position of a township is given by its north -south "'li>wnship" position relative to the baseline and its east -west "Range" position relative to the meridian. Each township is divided into 36 one -square -mile (640 -acre) sections numbered from 1 to 36. For example, a well designated as 18S/11E-29AAC is located in Township 18 south, Range 11. east, section 29. The letters following the section number correspond to the location within the section; the first letter (A) identifies the quarter section (160 acres); the second letter (A) identifies the quarter -quarter section (40 acres); and the third letter (C) identifies the quarter -quarter -quarter section (10 acres). Therefore, well 29AAC is located in the SW quarter of the NE quarter of the NE quarter of section 29. When more than one designated well occurs in the quarter -quarter -quarter section, a serial number is included. R. 6 E. R. 8 E. R. 10 E. R. 12 E. Well- and spring -location system. T. 18 S. T. 20 S. Each well is assigned a unique 8 -digit identification number known as the log -id number. The first two digits of the log -id number indicate the county code from the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code file for the county in which the well exists. The FIPS codes for the counties in the study area are as follows: 13, Crook County; 17, Deschutes County; 31, Jefferson County; and 35, Klamath County. The last 6 digits of the number correspond to the State of Oregon well -log number (a unique number assigned by the Oregon Water Resources Department to the report filed by the well driller). MAPPING SOURCES: Base map modified from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 State base map, 1982, with digital data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, TIGER/Line (R), 1990, and U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graphs published at 1:100,000. Publication projection is Lambert Conformal Conic. Standard parallels 43100' and 45130', central meridian —120°30'. A Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon By Marshall W. Gannett, Kenneth E. Lite Jr., David S. Morgan, and Charles A. Collins Abstract The upper Deschutes Basin is among the fastest growing regions in Oregon. The rapid population growth has been accompanied by increased demand for water. Surface streams, however, have been administratively closed to additional appropriation for many years, and surface water is not generally available to support new development. Consequently, ground water is being relied upon to satisfy the growth in water demand. Oregon water law requires that the potential effects of ground -water development on streamflow be evaluated when considering applications for new ground -water rights. Prior to this study, hydrologic understanding has been insufficient to quantitatively evaluate the connec- tion between ground water and streamflow, and the behavior of the regional ground -water flow system in general. This report describes the results of a hydrologic investigation undertaken to provide that understanding. The investigation encompasses about 4,500 square miles of the upper Deschutes River drainage basin. A large proportion of the precipitation in the upper Deschutes Basin falls in the Cascade Range, making it the principal ground -water recharge area for the basin. Water -balance calculations indicate that the average annual rate of ground -water recharge from precipitation is about 3,500 ft3/s (cubic feet per second). Water - budget calculations indicate that in addition to recharge from precipitation, water enters the ground -water system through interbasin flow. Approximately 800 ft3/s flows into the Metolius River drainage from the west and about 50 ft3/s flows into the southeastern part of the study area from the Fort Rock Basin. East of the Cascade Range, there is little or no ground -water recharge from precipitation, but leaking irrigation canals are a significant source of artificial recharge north of Bend. The average annual rate of canal leakage during 1994 was estimated to be about 490 ft3/s. Ground water flows from the Cascade Range through permeable volcanic rocks eastward out into the basin and then generally northward. About one-half the ground water flowing from the Cascade Range discharges td spring -fed streams along the margins of the range, including the upper Metolius River and its tributaries. The remaining ground water flows through the sub- surface, primarily through rocks of the Deschutes Formation, and eventually discharges to streams near the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. Substantial ground -water discharge occurs along the lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek, the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and Pelton Dam, the lower Crooked River between Osborne Canyon and the mouth, and in Lake Billy Chinook (a reservoir that inun- dates the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers). The large amount of ground -water discharge in the confluence area is primarily caused by geologic factors. North (downstream) of the confluence area, the upper Deschutes Basin is transected by a broad region of low -permeability rock of the John Day Formation. The Deschutes River flows north across the low -permeability region, but the permeable Deschutes Formation, through which most of the regional ground water flows, ends against this rampart of low -perme- ability rock. The northward -flowing ground water discharges to the streams in this area because the permeable strata through which it flows terminate, forcing the water to discharge to the surface. Virtually all of the regional ground water in the upper Deschutes Basin discharges to surface streams south of the area where the Deschutes River enters this low -permeability terrane, at roughly the location of Pelton Dam. The effects of ground -water withdrawal on streamflow cannot presently be measured because of measurement error and the large amount of natural variability in ground -water discharge. The summer streamflow near Madras, which is made up largely of ground -water discharge, is approximately 4,000 ft3/s. Estimated consumptive ground -water use in the basin is about 30 ft3/s, which is well within the range of the expected streamflow measurement error. The natural variation in ground -water discharge upstream of Madras due to climate cycles is on the order of 1,000 ft3/s. This amount of natural variation masks the effects of present ground -water use. Even though the effects of ground -water use on streamflow cannot be measured, geologic and hydrologic analysis indicate that they are present. Ground -water -level fluctuations in the upper Deschutes Basin are driven primarily by decadal climate cycles. Decadal water -level fluctuations exceeding 20 ft (feet) have been observed in wells at widespread locations near the margin of the Cascade Range. The magnitude of these fluctuations diminishes toward the east, with increasing distance from the Cascade Range. Annual water -level fluctuations of a few feet are common in areas of leaking irrigation canals, with larger fluctuations observed in some wells very close to canals. Annual water -level fluctuations of up to 3 ft due to ground -water pumping were observed locally. No long-term water -level declines attributable to pumping were found in the upper Deschutes Basin. The effects of stresses to the ground -water system are diffused and attenuated with distance. This phenomenon is shown by the regional response to the end of a prolonged drought and the shift to wetter -than -normal conditions starting in 1996. Ground -water levels in the Cascade Range, the locus of ground -water recharge, stopped declining and started rising during the winter of 1996. In contrast, water levels in the Redmond area, 30 miles east of the Cascade Range, did not start to rise again until late 1997 or 1998. The full effects of stresses to the ground- water system, including pumping, may take several years to propagate across the basin. Ground -water discharge fluctuations were analyzed using stream -gage records. Ground- water discharge from springs and seeps e,;timated from stream -gage records shows climate -driven decadal fluctuations following the same pattern as the water -level fluctuations. Data from 1962 to 1997 show decadal-scale variations of 22 to 74 percent in ground -water discharge along major streams that have more than 100 ft3/s of ground- water inflow. INTRODUCTION Background and Study Objectives The upper Deschutes Basin is presently one of the fastest growing population centers in the State of Oregon. The number of people in Deschutes County, the most populous county in the basin, more than tripled between 1970 and 1998 (State of Oregon, 1999). Approximately 140,000 people lived in the upper Deschutes Basin as of 1998. Growth in the region is expected to continue, and residents and government agencies are concerned about water supplies for the burgeoning population and the consequences of increased development for existing water users. Surface -water resources in the area have been closed by the State of Oregon to additional appropriation for many years. Therefore, virtually all new development in the region must rely on ground water as a source of water. Prior to this study, very little quantitative information was available on the ground -water hydrology of the basin. This lack of information made ground -water resource manage- ment decisions difficult and was generally a cause for concern. To fill this information void, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a cooperative study in 1993 with the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The objectives of this study were to provide a quanti- tative assessment of the regional ground -water system and provide the understanding and analytical tools for State and local government agencies, hydrologists, and local residents to make resource management decisions. This report is one in a series that presents the results of the upper Deschutes Basin ground -water study. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive quantitative description of regional ground -water flow in the upper Deschutes Basin. The report provides an analysis of the data compiled or collected during the study, and presents a description of the regional ground -water hydrology based on that analysis. The results of the study presented herein are based on both preexisting information and new data. Preexisting information included regional -scale maps of geology, topography, soils, vegetation, and pre- cipitation. In addition, streamflow data were available for numerous sites for periods of time since the early 1900s. Data were also available from several weather stations that operate in the study area. In addition, surface -water diversion records were available for all major irrigation canals. Data described above were augmented by data from numerous reports and studies. Hydrologic data collected for this study included gain/loss measurements for several streams, and geo- logic and hydraulic -head data from about 1,500 wells that were precisely located in the field. Geophysical, lithologic, and hydrographic data were collected from a subset of these wells. Wells are unevenly distributed in the area and occur mostly in areas of privately owned land. There are few well data from the large tracts of public land that cover most of the study area. Therefore, there are large regions of the Cascade Range, Newberry Volcano, and the High Lava Plains where subsurface hydrologic information is sparse. This study is regional in scope. It is intended to provide the most complete assessment possible of the regional ground -water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin given the data that were available or that could be collected within the resources of the project. This work is not intended to describe details of ground -water flow at local scales; however, it will provide a sound framework for local -scale investigations. Study Area The upper Deschutes Basin study area encom- passes approximately 4,500 mit (square miles) of the Deschutes River drainage basin in central Oregon (fig. 1). The area is drained by the Deschutes River and its major tributaries: the Little Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, Squaw Creek, and the Metolius River from the west, and the Crooked River from the east. Land -surface elevation ranges from less than 1,300 ft near Gateway in the northern part of the study area to more than 10,000 ft above sea level in the Cascade Range. The study -area boundaries were chosen to coin- cide as much as possible with natural hydrologic boundaries across which ground -water flow can be reasonably estimated or assumed to be negligible. The study area is bounded on the north by Jefferson Creek, the Metolius River, the Deschutes River, and Trout Creek; on the east by the generalized contact between the Deschutes Formation and the older, much less permeable John Day Formation; on the south by the drainage divides between the Deschutes Basin and the Fort Rock and Klamath Basins; and on the west by the Cascade Range crest. The study area includes the major population centers in the basin, where ground -water development is most intense and resource management questions are most urgent. The major communities include Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Madras, Prineville, and La Pine. Principal industries in the region are agriculture, forest products, tourism, and service industries. Sixty-six percent of the 4,500 mit upper Des- chutes Basin is publicly owned (fig. 2). Approximately 2,230 mit are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, 730 mit are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and about 20 mit are under the stewardship of State or County agencies. The remaining 1,520 mit are in private ownership. The highest elevations in the upper Deschutes Basin are in the western and southern parts. These regions are covered by coniferous forests, most of which have been managed for timber production. The remaining parts of the basin, which are at lower elevations, are more and and, where not cultivated, are dominated by grassland, sagebrush, and juniper. Most of the non -forest -related agriculture occurs in the central and northern parts of the upper Deschutes Basin. 44'30' 44"00 43'3 122"00' 123"00' ewers oi. Lake Bill Ro nd ;.; Madras a Candl $ - z c 4 Chinook Bu a e M�o�iuS o 11 mac 0 a° yr 4 tl z bo1.Cr Culver o anyon - Gn ,. i c0 � y •, ," hne reek � 12 hree `. ac O y .Pal. tie Fin ere First. Gr - •" .. �� Y Jack aka Ca p _?kel�Sh rp _to( G 2oir 13 28 ck U, eI ° St V u� �� 20 S tiam �utti ass Lake *BI �� Falia r Trail o in - > #e e N. � - �� t It • � a0 `. ��a Gee - sv_ ,Lower �ry t �,� 14.Och c Washinglo O( J�G Brid9 Ho sto h 5. k ne Si ter .4 -" all r ed ond, nnew River Ochoco eservo 6 M Kenzie (- �... * .mac Pass - Cline 26 i Bultes t, wore t orth f f� dNaa O. �I, .i ,Cir _f �• Y f 28 S star �; J`@c iddl 16�o�0 . Sister Ck b oull Broken "��'<- - '�� G �- nnevill ister� *op a 100: I Reservo ` 17 Lakes ,� 6. 1 y(o �._ Ben T 0 L ke Ml Lav i ;' 18 *Bachelor Islan fart osm enher Lake Nifty 1 Sheridan Lava* *Mountain Butteo Millican 19 9Sr0,y. Sunr' a < r ultu - 0 r, y/� 20 (� Lak ult m 20 5%e 6 7 r 8 9 Ri er 1 12 14 15 16 t r r��• J Rese Ir G N8 berrj% • OICR anj '71, Pine Mountain 17 4, ___ aLeka Eke 21 a o �iP--eullq M re p �e� PeuMte a��. C na 22 Maiden Wickiu p n Ps>tk �� Het Peak eseryo J illame a Pe Davi G� y Qc 23 /La Oldd-I � D Study Deschu^e area 24 1• can - g0e Gree k �J& OII hris Od II�`u R u ie ► OREGON r •t f 01 25 w0 1. 5 10 MILES J so 0 x y 0 26 97 0 5 10 KILOMETERS 27 44'30' 44"0( 43"3 123'00' Figure 2. Location of field -located wells and land ownership in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. There are approximately 164,000 acres (256 mit) of irrigated agricultural land in the study area. The largest source of irrigation water is the Deschutes River. Most water is diverted from the Deschutes River near Bend and distributed to areas to the north through several hundred miles of canals. Smaller amounts of irrigation water are diverted from Tumalo and Squaw Creeks, the Crooked River, and Ochoco Creek. The climate in the Deschutes Basin is controlled primarily by air masses that move eastward from the Pacific Ocean, across western Oregon, and into central Oregon. The climate is moderate with cool, wet winters and waim, dry summers. Orographic pro- cesses result in large amounts of precipitation in the Cascade Range in the western part of the basin, with precipitation locally exceeding 200 in./yr (inches per year), mostly as snow, during the winter (Taylor, 1993). Precipitation rates diminish rapidly toward the east to less than 10 in./yr in the central part of the basin (fig. 3). Temperatures also vary across the basin. Records from the Oregon Climate Service show mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures at Santiam Pass in the Cascade Range (period of record 1961-85) range from 21 and 340F (degrees Fahrenheit) in January to 43 and 73°F in July (Oregon Climate Service, 1999). Conditions are warmer at lower elevations in the central part of the basin. The mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures in Bend (period of record 1961 to 1999) range from 22 and 42°F in January to 45 and 81°F in July (Oregon Climate Service, 1999). Climate in the Deschutes Basin exhibits year-to-year and longer- term variability. This variability generally parallels regional trends in the Pacific Northwest that have been correlated with large-scale ocean -atmosphere climate variability patterns in the Pacific Basin such as the EI Nifio/Southern Oscillation (Redmond and Koch, 199 1) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Mantua and others, 1997). Approach The approach to; this study consisted of five major elements: (1) reviewing existing geologic and hydrologic maps and literature and conceptual models of the regional flow system, (2) inventorying and field -locating wells for subsurface geological and hydraulic -head information, (3) compiling and collecting data to estimate the amounts and distribu- tion of various components of the hydrologic budget, (4) compiling and collecting water -level fluctuation information to evaluate the dynamics of regional ground -water flow and assess the state of the system, and (5) developing a computer model to simulate the ground -water flow system. This report addresses the first four of these elements. At the onset of this investigation there were no published reports on the quantitative regional ground -water hydrology of the basin. The only regional -scale reports prior to this study were an unpublished descriptive report written for the Oregon State Engineer (Sceva, 1960) and an assessment of the potential effects of disposal wells in the basin (Sceva, 1968). All other ground -water reports and studies were restricted to smaller geographic areas. Sceva's works presented a conceptual model of regional ground -water flow in the basin that has been largely corroborated by this study. Although no single geo- logic map encompassed the entire study area at a scale larger than 1:500,000, the study area was largely covered by a montage of maps at scales ranging from 1:100,000 to 1:24,000. This study benefited from the inventory and field location of about 700 wells by the USGS in the late 1970s as part of a study that was later terminated for lack of funding. In addition, geophysical logs and peri- odic water -level measurements existed for a subset of those wells. To augment the 700 wells field located at the start of this investigation, an additional 800 wells were inventoried and field located. The geographic distribution of these 1,500 field -located wells (fig. 2) mirrors the distribution of wells in the basin in general. The highest density of wells occurs on private land. Water levels were measured in located wells whenever possible. Field -located wells provided information on hydraulic -head distribution and subsurface geology. Approximately 35 wells were geophysically logged and drill cuttings were collected for approximately 70 wells. One-hour specific -capacity tests were avail- able for most wells and aquifer tests were conducted on four wells to provide additional information on hydraulic characteristics. Water -level data from field -located wells and elevations of major springs and gaining streams were used to map hydraulic -head distribution in the region. The resulting distribution map was the basic source of information regarding the horizontal and vertical directions of ground -water flow. W z z z Q a U W a r FE z 0 2 SISTERS _ to Z 0 a t a X z O M � n Z 10 ODELL LAKE Z WICKIUP DAM 0 0 C a a MADRAS PRINEVILLE MONTH REDMOND AIRPORT MONTH MONTH MONTH Figure 3. Lines of equal precipitation and graphs of mean monthly precipitation for selected precipitation stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. 7 Z 5Cr > = e EXPLANATION X z —10— Line of equal precipitation - 0 0 Interval 5 and 10 inches Precipitation station MONTH MONTH Figure 3. Lines of equal precipitation and graphs of mean monthly precipitation for selected precipitation stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. 7 Major components of the hydrologic budget were either measured or estimated. Recharge from natural precipitation was estimated by a daily mass - balance approach using the Deep Percolation Model (DPM) of Bauer and Vaccaro (1987). Recharge from canal leakage was estimated from surface -water diversion records and estimates of farm deliveries, in combination with canal seepage studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Farm deliveries and on-farm losses were derived from consumptive - use and irrigation -efficiency estimates. On-farm consumptive use was estimated from crop information derived from LANDSAT images and crop -water -use estimates from BOR AgriMet stations in the basin. The rate and distribution of ground -water discharge to streams and springs throughout the study area were estimated using data from active and historic stream gages, gain/loss studies conducted by OWRD Central Region staff, and miscellaneous published streamflow measurements. The rate and distribution of ground -water pumping was estimated for public supply and for irrigation uses. Public -supply pumping was derived from measurements or estimates supplied by the municipalities and other public water suppliers. Irrigation pumping was estimated using information from the OWRD Water -Rights Information System (WRIS) in combination with on-farm consumptive - use estimates derived in the manner described above. Pumping by private domestic wells was estimated using well -log records and population statistics. The dynamics of the ground -water flow system, both at a regional and local scale, were evaluated by analyzing ground -water -level fluctuations in response to both long- and short-term hydrologic phenomena such as variations in climate, individual storms, canal operation, and pumping. Periodic water -level measurements were compiled from historic data and collected from about 100 wells. The frequency of measurements and the duration of records for wells varied considerably. There were about 90 wells with quarterly water -level measurements spanning periods ranging from a few years to over 50 years. In addition, there are 16 wells in which water levels were recorded every 2 hours for periods ranging from a few months to over 4 years (Caldwell and Truini, 1997). The chemistry of selected wells, springs, and canals in the study area was analyzed and interpreted by Caldwell (1998). This analysis provided additional insights into the regional ground -water flow system and into the interaction of ground water and surface water, including irrigation canals. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the residents of the upper Deschutes Basin through- out this investigation. Particular thanks go to the hundreds of landowners who allowed access to their wells for water -level monitoring and sampling. The Public Works staff of the cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and Madras were extremely helpful in providing access to their water systems as well as information on water use and disposal wells. Private water companies in the basin were also helpful, but particular thanks goes to Avion Water Company, Black Butte Ranch Corporation, Deschutes Valley Water District, and Juniper Utility for access to their wells for monitoring, testing, and sampling. Information on diversions and water use provided by the many irrigation districts in the basin was extremely help- ful and is greatly appreciated. There are several individuals who have particular kn+>wledge of certain aspects of geology or water in the basin, and who freely shared ideas and insights with the authors. This group includes (alphabetically) Larry Chitwood, Rick Conrey, Mark Ferns, Kyle Gorman, Bob Main, Dave Sherrod, and Jan Wick. Larry Chitwood provided a thoughtful and thorough review of this report. Lastly, special thanks go to Susan Prowell with the city of Bend, who handled all the logistics for years of quarterly meetings, and to all the people who showed their interest and support by attending them. GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK The storage and flow of ground water are controlled to a large extent by geology. The principle geologic factors that influence ground water are the porosity and permeability of the rock or sediment through which it flows. Porosity, in general terms, is the proportion of a rock or deposit that consists of open space. In a gravel deposit, this would be the proportion of the volume of the deposit represented by the space between the individual pebbles and cobbles. Permeability is a measure of the resistance to the movement of water through the rock or deposit. Deposits with large interconnected open spaces, such as gravel, have little resistance to ground -water flow and are therefore considered highly permeable. Rocks with few, very small, or poorly connected open spaces offer considerable resistance to ground -water flow and, therefore, have low permeability. The hydraulic characteristics of geologic materials vary between rock types and within particular rock types. For example, in sedimentary deposits the permeability is a function of grain size and the range of grain sizes (the degree of sorting). Coarse, well -sorted gravel has much higher permeability than fine, silty sand deposits. The permeability of lava flows can also vary markedly depending on the degree of fracturing. The highly fractured, rubbly zones at the tops and bottoms of lava flows and in interflow zones are often highly permeable, while the dense interior parts of lava flows can have very low permeability. Weathering and secondary mineralization, which are often a function of the age of the rock, can strongly influence perme- ability. Sedimentary deposits or lava flows in which the original open spaces have been infilled with secondary minerals can have very low permeability. Geologic properties that influence the movement of ground water within a flow system can also define the boundaries of the system. Terranes consisting of predominantly low -permeability materials can form the boundaries of a regional flow system. This section briefly describes the geologic framework of the regional ground -water flow system in the upper Deschutes Basin, including a brief description of the major geologic units, geologic structure, and the geologic factors controlling the flow -system boundaries. Geologic Controls on Regional Ground -Water Flow The upper Deschutes Basin has been a region of volcanic activity for at least 35 million years (Sherrod and others, in press), resulting in complex assemblages of volcanic vents and lava flows, pyro- clastic deposits, and volcanically derived sedimentary deposits (fig. 4). Volcanic processes have created many of the present-day landforms in the basin. Glaciation and stream processes have subsequently modified the landscape in many places. Most of the upper Deschutes Basin falls within two major geologic provinces, the Cascade Range and the Basin and Range Province (Orr and others, 1992). The processes that have operated in these provinces have overlapped and interacted in much of the upper Deschutes Basin. The Cascade Range is a north -south trending zone of compositionally diverse volcanic eruptive centers and their deposits extending from northern California to southern British Columbia. Prominent among the eruptive centers in the Des- chutes Basin are large stratovolcanoes such as North, Middle, and South Sister, and Mount Jefferson, all of which exceed 10,000 ft in elevation. The Cascade Range is primarily a constructional feature, but its growth has been accompanied, at least in places, by subsidence of the range into a north -south trending graben (Allen, 1966). Green Ridge is the eastern escarpment of one of the graben -bounding faults. The Basin and Range Province is a region of crustal extension and is characterized by subparallel fault - bounded down -dropped basins separated by fault - block ranges. Individual basins and intervening ranges are typically 10 to 20 miles across. The Basin and Range Province, which encompasses much of the interior of the Western United States, extends from central Oregon south through Nevada and western Utah, and into the southern parts of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Although the Basin and Range Province is primarily structural, faulting has been accompanied by widespread volcanism. The major stratigraphic units in the upper Deschutes Basin are described below in approximate order of their age. The oldest rocks in the upper Deschutes Basin study area (unit Tjd in fig. 4) are part of the late Eocene to early Miocene John Day Formation and consist primarily of rhyolitic ash -flow tuffs, lava flows, tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, and vent deposits. The John Day Formation ranges in age from 22 to 39 million years and is as much as 4,000 ft thick (Smith and others, 1998). Rocks of the John Day Formation have very low permeability because the tuffaceous materials are mostly devitrified (changed to clays and other minerals) and lava flows are weathered and contain abundant secondary minerals. Because of the low permeability, ground water does not easily move through the John Day Formation, and the unit acts as a barrier to regional ground -water flow. The John Day Formation constitutes the eastern and northern boundary of the regional ground -water flow system. The John Day Formation, or equivalent rocks, are presumed to underlie much of the upper Deschutes Basin and are considered the lower boundary of the regional flow system throughout much of the study area. 44-30 44"00 43'30 122"00' 123"00' Figure 4. Generalized geology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. r 10 G 26 97 ,W%e.Natef ..� Pelto Dam d Lake imtust ti est k�. TF mac` W 00 �� Lake Billy a I Chinook n � • Ur i L Z r o Q C , lY Junipe reek di • aystack eservoir 120— C,rav 2D It . utt � �t oust v OCl ioo � Laked r �L1�e 'C3L 6 �♦ " i'26 " S � t �- Prineville neservov o I •�� e o \ / a �l ( rothers au \ 20 G - r Cn��, 58 r, • m I d le U \\\ O r t'P• r' �1e _ nt nt • pO jgdSrY Study er g} � 97 Figure 4. Generalized geology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. r 10 EXPLANATION Geologic unit present at land surface Qalg Quaternary alluvium and glacial deposits; Quaternary to late Tertiary landslide deposits Ds Quaternary sediments and sedimentary rocks, undivided Qp Quaternary pyroclastic deposits ® Quaternary to late Tertiary basaltic to andesitic lava Quaternary and late Tertiary rhyolitic to dacitic lava Quaternary and late Tertiary vent deposits, TIQ 1 Late Tertiary sediments and sedimentary rocks, undivided, mostly of the Deschutes Formation Tba Tertiary basaltic to andesitic lava - Tertiary rhyolitic to dacitic lava - Tertiary pyroclastic deposits . Tertiary vent deposits [`�ti V Prineville basalt . Early Tertiary volcanic deposits, mainly the John Day Formation Geologic fault, dashed where inferred, dotted where concealed — — — — Outline of La Pine and Shukash structural basins, inferred from gravity data NOTE: Geology generalized from: MacLeod and Sherrod, 1992; MacLeod and others, 1995; Sherrod, 1991; Sherrod and Smith, 2000; Sherrod and others, in press; Smith, 1987; Smith and Hayman, 1987; Swanson, 1969, and Walker and others, 1967. Shukash and La Pine outline from Richard Couch, Oregon State University, personal commun., 1996 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS The Prineville basalt (unit Tpb in figure 4) over- lies the John Day Formation in the northeastern part of the study area. Radiometric techniques indicate that the Prineville basalt is 15.7 million years old (Smith, 1986). The Prineville basalt, which is up to 700 ft thick, is locally fractured, contains permeable interflow zones, and is locally an important aquifer. 11 The Deschutes Formation, whicli overlies the Prineville basalt, consists of a variety of materials deposited in an alluvial basin east of the Cascade Range, including lava flows, ignimbrites, fallout tephra, debris flows, hyperconcentrated flood deposits, and alluvium. Most of the deposits originated in the Cascade Range and were shed eastward into the basin, but some originated from intrabasin eruptive centers or were eroded from older (John Day Formation) uplands to the east. The Deschutes Formation was deposited in a rapidly filling basin with a constantly changing drain- age system between about 4.0 and 7.5 million years ago (Smith, 1986). Deposition of many units within the formation was restricted to canyons and other short-lived topographic lows. Consequently, individual strata within the Deschutes Formation typically have limited geographic distribution resulting in a hetero- geneous sequence. Most of the areas mapped as Tds, Tba, Tp, and Tv in figure 4 are generally recognized as part of the Deschutes Formation. Some areas so mapped in southern part of figure 4 are not generally considered part of the Deschutes Formation, but are composed of rocks similar in composition and age to the Deschutes Formation, and likely have similar hydrologic characteristics. Strata within the Deschutes Formation were deposited in three main depositional environments (Smith, 1986). The westernmost depositional environ- ment was a broad plain adjacent to the Cascade Range, on which a variety of materials were deposited, includ- ing flood and debris -flow deposits, ignimbrites, fallout tephra, and lava flows. The ancestral Deschutes River was another depositional environment, occurring along the eastern margin of the alluvial plain. Deposits in the ancestral Deschutes River environment include well - sorted conglomerates and coarse sandstone, fine sand- stone, mudstone, and intracanyon lava flows. A third depositional environment existed along the inactive eastern margin of the basin. Here, material eroded from the highland of older rock to the east (mostly John Day Formation) was redeposited, resulting in beds of poorly sorted angular gravel and sand, reworked pyroclastic debris, and fine-grained sediment. The Deschutes Formation is the principal aquifer unit in the upper Deschutes Basin. The unit ranges in thickness from zero where it contacts the underlying John Day Formation or Prineville basalt to over 2,000 ft at its westernmost exposure at Green Ridge. Permeable zones occur throughout the Deschutes Formation. The lava flows, vent deposits, and sand and gravel layers in the Cascade Range -adjacent alluvial vent deposits, TIQ 1 Late Tertiary sediments and sedimentary rocks, undivided, mostly of the Deschutes Formation Tba Tertiary basaltic to andesitic lava - Tertiary rhyolitic to dacitic lava - Tertiary pyroclastic deposits . Tertiary vent deposits [`�ti V Prineville basalt . Early Tertiary volcanic deposits, mainly the John Day Formation Geologic fault, dashed where inferred, dotted where concealed — — — — Outline of La Pine and Shukash structural basins, inferred from gravity data NOTE: Geology generalized from: MacLeod and Sherrod, 1992; MacLeod and others, 1995; Sherrod, 1991; Sherrod and Smith, 2000; Sherrod and others, in press; Smith, 1987; Smith and Hayman, 1987; Swanson, 1969, and Walker and others, 1967. Shukash and La Pine outline from Richard Couch, Oregon State University, personal commun., 1996 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS The Prineville basalt (unit Tpb in figure 4) over- lies the John Day Formation in the northeastern part of the study area. Radiometric techniques indicate that the Prineville basalt is 15.7 million years old (Smith, 1986). The Prineville basalt, which is up to 700 ft thick, is locally fractured, contains permeable interflow zones, and is locally an important aquifer. 11 The Deschutes Formation, whicli overlies the Prineville basalt, consists of a variety of materials deposited in an alluvial basin east of the Cascade Range, including lava flows, ignimbrites, fallout tephra, debris flows, hyperconcentrated flood deposits, and alluvium. Most of the deposits originated in the Cascade Range and were shed eastward into the basin, but some originated from intrabasin eruptive centers or were eroded from older (John Day Formation) uplands to the east. The Deschutes Formation was deposited in a rapidly filling basin with a constantly changing drain- age system between about 4.0 and 7.5 million years ago (Smith, 1986). Deposition of many units within the formation was restricted to canyons and other short-lived topographic lows. Consequently, individual strata within the Deschutes Formation typically have limited geographic distribution resulting in a hetero- geneous sequence. Most of the areas mapped as Tds, Tba, Tp, and Tv in figure 4 are generally recognized as part of the Deschutes Formation. Some areas so mapped in southern part of figure 4 are not generally considered part of the Deschutes Formation, but are composed of rocks similar in composition and age to the Deschutes Formation, and likely have similar hydrologic characteristics. Strata within the Deschutes Formation were deposited in three main depositional environments (Smith, 1986). The westernmost depositional environ- ment was a broad plain adjacent to the Cascade Range, on which a variety of materials were deposited, includ- ing flood and debris -flow deposits, ignimbrites, fallout tephra, and lava flows. The ancestral Deschutes River was another depositional environment, occurring along the eastern margin of the alluvial plain. Deposits in the ancestral Deschutes River environment include well - sorted conglomerates and coarse sandstone, fine sand- stone, mudstone, and intracanyon lava flows. A third depositional environment existed along the inactive eastern margin of the basin. Here, material eroded from the highland of older rock to the east (mostly John Day Formation) was redeposited, resulting in beds of poorly sorted angular gravel and sand, reworked pyroclastic debris, and fine-grained sediment. The Deschutes Formation is the principal aquifer unit in the upper Deschutes Basin. The unit ranges in thickness from zero where it contacts the underlying John Day Formation or Prineville basalt to over 2,000 ft at its westernmost exposure at Green Ridge. Permeable zones occur throughout the Deschutes Formation. The lava flows, vent deposits, and sand and gravel layers in the Cascade Range -adjacent alluvial plain facies and the ancestral Deschutes River facies are locally highly permeable. Two sequences of lava flows in the Deschutes Formation, the Opal Springs basalt, which is up to 120 ft thick, and the Pelton basalt, which may locally exceed 400 ft in thickness, are notable aquifers and locally discharge large amounts of water where exposed in the canyons of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. The inactive margin facies is less permeable because of poor sorting and a high degree of weathering. Rhyolite and rhyodacite domes (unit Trd in figure 4) occur in the north -central part of the study area and are locally interbedded with the Deschutes Formation. These materials form Cline Buttes and also crop out in the area between the Deschutes River and Squaw Creek north of Lower Bridge. These rocks are locally highly fractured and permeable. Numerous springs discharge from permeable zones in this unit where it is exposed in the canyon of the Deschutes River near Steelhead Falls (Ferns and others, 1996). The Cascade Range and volcanic deposits of similar age elsewhere in the basin overlie the Des- chutes Formation and constitute the next major com- posite stratigraphic unit. These deposits include units Qp, QTba, QTrd, and QTv in figure 4. This composite unit, which is likely several thousand feet thick, is composed of lava flows, domes, vent deposits, pyroclastic deposits, and volcanic sediments. Most are Quaternary in age (younger than 1.6 million years old). This unit includes the entire Cascade Range and Newberry Volcano to the east. Much of this material is highly permeable, especially the upper several hundred feet. Permeability of the unit is greatly reduced at depth beneath the Cascade Range, however, due to hydrothermal alteration and secondary mineral- ization (Blackwell and others, 1990; Blackwell, 1992; Ingebritsen and others, 1992). Temperature gradient data (Swanberg and others, 1988) and hydrothermal mineralization studies (Keith and Barger, 1988, 1999) suggest a similar loss of permeability at depth beneath Newberry Volcano. The top of the region at depth beneath the Cascade Range and Newberry Volcano where permeability is reduced by several orders of magnitude due to hydrothermal mineralization is con- sidered, for the purposes of this study, to be the base of the regional ground -water flow system in these areas. The Cascade Range and volcanic deposits of similar age are highly permeable at shallow depths. The near -surface deposits are often highly fractured or otherwise porous and largely lack secondary mineral- ization. The Cascade Range is the principal ground- water recharge area for the upper Deschutes Basin, and these deposits are the principal avenue by which most ground water moves from the recharge area out into the basin. Because there are very few wells in the Cascade Range and on Newberry Volcano, there is little information on the distribution of hydraulic head or subsurface conditions. The youngest units in the upper Deschutes Basin are Quaternary sedimentary deposits. These deposits include alluvium along modern flood plains, landslide deposits, and glacial drift and outwash (unit Qalg on figure 4). Undifferentiated Quaternary sedimentary deposits resulting from a variety of depositional processes are mapped as Qs in figure 4. Many of the Quaternary sedimentary deposits in the basin are too thin or discontinuous to affect regional ground- water flow. However, glacial deposits, particularly outwash deposits, are sufficiently thick and wide- spread to be significant. Glacial deposits, generally porous and permeable, are an important source of ground water along the margin of the Cascade Range, for example in the area around the city of Sisters. Alluvial sand and gravel deposits also form an important aquifer in the La Pine subbasin (fig. 4). Geologic structure, principally faults and fault zones, can influence ground -water flow. Fault zones can act either as barriers to or conduits for ground- water flow, depending on the nature of the material in and between the individual fault planes. Faults most commonly affect ground -water flow by juxtaposing rocks of contrasting permeability or by affecting the patterns of deposition. Structural basins caused by faulting can act as depositional centers for large thick- nesses of sediment or lava that may influence regional ground -water flow. Faults do not always influence ground -water flow; there are regions in the upper Deschutes Basin where ground -water flow appears unaffected by the presence of faults. There are four prominent fault zones in the upper Deschutes Basin (fig. 4). Green Ridge, north of Black Butte, is a prominent north -south trending escarpment caused by faulting along the margin of the Cascade graben. The region to the west of Green Ridge has dropped as much as 3,000 ft (Conrey, 1985). This fault movement has juxtaposed rock materials of contrast- ing permeability, and subsidence west of the fault sys- tem has created a depositional basin for accumulation of volcanic and glacial materials from the Cascade Range. A large amount of ground water discharges 12 to the Metolius River along the western side of the Green Ridge escarpment. It is possible that the ground- water discharge occurs because the Green Ridge fault zone acts as a barrier to the eastward flow of ground water from the Cascade Range. It is also possible that discharge occurs because the western side of the escarpment is a regional topographic low. The Sisters fault zone is a north-northwest trend- ing zone of normal faults that extends from the north flank of Newberry Volcano to the south end of Green Ridge near Black Butte. Escarpments of some faults along the Sisters fault zone have impounded lava flows from the Cascade Range and prevented flow into lower - elevation areas toward the northeast. Escarpments along the Sisters fault zone also have caused local ac- cumulation of glacial sediments. Although the Sisters fault zone affects the occurrence of shallow ground water by controlling the deposition of glacial sediment, it does not appear to affect ground -water flow at depth. The Brothers fault zone is a major northwest - trending zone of normal faults that extends from south- eastern Oregon to the north flank of Newberry Volcano, Faults along this zone are covered by lava flows from Newberry Volcano and do not appear to offset those flows. The influence of the Brothers fault zone on regional ground -water flow is unknown. The Walker Rim fault zone is a major northeast - trending zone that extends from Chemult to the south flank of Newberry Volcano. The region to the west has dropped as much as 2,500 ft (feet). The influence of this fault zone on ground -water flow is unknown. The La Pine and Shukash structural basins (fig. 4) are complex graben structures extending from New- berry Volcano to the crest of the Cascade Range. Much of what is known of these features is from interpreta- tions of gravity data by Couch and Foote (1985, and written commun., 1996). The La Pine graben is a present-day landform, and well data shows that it has accumulated over 1,000 ft of sediment, much of which is fine grained. The Shukash basin, in contrast, has no surface expression, is mostly covered by younger vol- canic and glacial deposits, and its existence is inferred largely from gravity data. The sediment thickness at the center of the basin is inferred to be about 2,500 ft. The nature of sediment fill is poorly known, but where exposed or drilled, the sediment in the Shukash basin is similar to that of the La Pine basin. The fine-grained sediment fill in the La Pine and Shukash basins has low permeability. The presence of large springs on the margins of the La Pine and Shukash basins may be due 13 to the juxtaposition of permeable Cascade Range volcanic rocks with the low -permeability basin -fill deposits. The faults bounding both of these grabens are largely obscured by younger volcanic deposits. Hydraulic Characteristics of Subsurface Materials As described in the preceding section, geologic materials possess certain hydraulic characteristics that control the movement and storage of ground water. This section describes quantitative terms that represent those characteristics and presents estimates or ranges of values of those terms for various materials in the upper Deschutes Basin. A more thorough discussion of the terms used to describe the hydraulic characteris- tics of aquifers and aquifer materials can be found in any basic ground -water hydrology text such as Freeze and Cherry (1979), Fetter (1980), or Heath (1983). The term permeability was introduced in the last section as a measure of the resistance to fluid flow offered by a particular rock type. Permeability is an intrinsic property of the rock type, and is independent of the fluid properties. In ground -water studies, the term hydraulic conductivity is used more commonly than permeability. The hydraulic conductivity term includes both the properties of the rock (the intrinsic permeability) and the properties of the water, such as viscosity and density. Hydraulic conductivity is defined as the volume of water per unit time that will pass through a unit area of an aquifer material in response to a unit hydraulic -head gradient. Hydraulic conductivity has the units of volume per unit time (such as cubic feet per day) per unit area (such as square feet), which simplifies by division to length per unit time (such as feet per day). Hydraulic - conductivity values for aquifer materials commonly span several orders of magnitude from less than 0.1 ft/d (feet per day) for fine sand and silt to over 1,000 ft/d for well -sorted sand and gravel. When discussing aquifers instead of rock types, the hydraulic conductivity is often multiplied by the aquifer thickness to derive a term known as transmis- sivity. Transmissivity is defined as the volume of water per unit time that will flow through a unit width of an aquifer perpendicular to the flow direction in response to a unit hydraulic -head gradient. Transmissivity has units of volume per unit time (such as cubic feet per day) per unit aquifer width (such as feet) which sim- plifies to length squared per unit time (such as square feet per day). The storage characteristics of an aquifer are described by the storage coefficient. The storage coefficient is defined as the volume of water an aquifer releases from, or takes into, storage per unit area of aquifer per unit change in head. The volume of water has units of length cubed (such as cubic feet), the area has units of length squared (such as square feet), and the head change has units of length (such as feet). Thus, the storage coefficient is dimensionless. Storage coefficients typically span several orders of magnitude from 10-4 for aquifers with overlying confining units, to 0.1 for unconfined aquifers. Aquifer Tests The hydraulic characteristics of subsurface materials in the basin have been estimated using data from aquifer tests, some of which were conducted as part of this study, and specific -capacity tests conducted by drillers upon completion of new wells. An aquifer test consists of pumping a well at a constant rate and measuring the change in water level (the drawdown) with time. The data collected allow generation of a curve showing the change in drawdown as a function of time. Similar data are collected after the pumping is stopped, allowing generation of a curve showing the water -level recovery as a function of time. These data are collected not only from the pumped well, but from nearby wells (called observation wells) in which the water level may be affected by the pumping. Analysis of the drawdown and recovery curves in the pumped well and observation wells provides estimates of the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer. Four aquifer tests were conducted as part of this study (fig. 5). Each involved pumping a large -capacity public -supply well and observing drawdown and recovery in nearby nonpumped wells. In addition, results from seven aquifer tests conducted by private consultants were available. A common problem encountered in many of the tests was the inability to stress the aquifer sufficiently to induce an interpretable effect in the observation wells. In other words, the aquifer transmissivity is so large in some places that pumping a well in excess of 1,000 gal/min (gallons per minute) may produce only a few hundredths of a foot of drawdown in an observation well just a few hundred feet from the pumped well. Aquifer tests were conducted for this study on wells belonging to the cities of Madras, Redmond, and Bend, as well as Juniper Utilities, a privately owned water utility. Each of the tests is summarized in table 1 and described in the following paragraphs. The loca- tion of the tested wells is shown in figure 5. The city of Madras test involved pumping City Well No. 2 at 351 gal/min for 3 days and monitoring the response in the pumped well and in an observation well 250 ft from the pumped well. The pumped well produces from a layer of sand and gravel at the base of a sequence of lava flows. The producing sediments are part of the inactive -margin facies of the Deschutes Formation (fig. 5). Both the pumped well and the observation well showed good responses to the pumping, with maximum drawdowns of 36.20 and 17.67 ft respectively. The drawdown and recovery curves were typical of a confined aquifer (Lohman, 1979). The test yielded a transmissivity estimate of 1,700 to 2,500 ft2/d (square feet per day) and a storage coefficient estimate of 0.0001 to 0.0002. The city of Redmond test consisted oto pumping City Well No. 3 at 1,141 gal/min for 3 days and monitoring the response in the pumped well and an observation well 350 ft from the pumped well. The well produces from a combination of lava flows and sand and gravel layers in the Cascades -adjacent allu- vial plain or ancestral Deschutes River facies of the Deschutes Formation. Interpretation of the results of this test was complicated by the very small response in the observation well. Total drawdown in the obser- vation well after 3 days of pumping was only 0.16 ft, which is close to the range of observed pre-test water - level fluctuations caused by external influences such as barometric pressure changes and earth tides. Draw- down in the pumping well (11.67 ft) was dominated by well losses (excessive drawdown in the well bore due to well inefficiency) so only the recovery data from the pumped well was usable. The drawdown and recovery curves resulting from this test were not typical of a confined aquifer. The drawdown followed the typical Theis curve (Lohman, 1979) near the beginning of the test, but later deviated from the curve, indicating that drawdown was less than would be expected for a confined aquifer. The exact cause of this behavior is unknown, but similar behavior is observed in aquifers where drainage of water from overlying strata cause a delayed -yield response (Neuman, 1975). Analysis of the test results yielded a transmissivity estimate of 2.0 x 105 ft2/d to 3.0 x 105 ft2/d, and a storage coefficient estimate of 0.05. 14 44"30 44"0 43' 123'00, Figure 5. Distribution of transmissivity estimates derived from specific -capacity tests of field -located domestic wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and the locations of aquifer tests conducted for this study. 15 V '> O O V v 0 O O O pp U OD O V �Iyr V — 00 O 8 tn O 1� V)V1 N •C N M .N. �d •C G'" tr•.y^UyJ y CI b0 by ' J •3 ,C v �'"� i v C U Q U .y U b "0 ("� 'o� .�.Uy _N `as vi � W V `TJ vi co Vi � Cd o0 8 N Cd cn m ►� p] �..� C d C p ltm V Ui O O u o 0 e �y O O O X X t` X 00 X X O O X X X .r CV W) N M '-. kn V� i d C C40) V N aE E- vUi vUi H EH vVi En cn v ° N N w 7 3 00 M N p a C i G M N vl 00 In _ O O N 00 M C 0 .�. O n tn N d n N G v R E g n vn O O N �Q HCL O .N. N � b b E cl ::�3 as CZ 3 a°'' c4 yu w ucd M NO V1 m M ONOM V1 C, 00 M . C O 000 N O M h W) Fl, V) d " 3 W En W C4 W rA W VI W En W V] W En W C/1 W CA W Lo W cq o cNA ° o oN = o o 3' C cwn O N O M M W W N N N ON V V) Ln cn ^2 V '. 00 V) 00 cn 00 V 00 16 N c O om n� C 2 V) N ro C7 u o z � 3 E a C00C o o •q o. 7 ou vO G o y O u a o ° S" o°n d 0 N ro E `o C E C U N 0 � 5 o m 'u m •y �b."T..CC7 y a : « O T E a n > m Co °y wO W C V v p a 0 'd N 6 C O V. E 5 o u. O ° O n o OO U 00 O U Z w T y U y o o o o = o ° T U a 0 0 0124 O 'OA U j U V o V 5 r o c u c -a c c o4 K° O N U N N V N C y c .c e rn c a �w�uiw�wa 45 5 �3w33a3� N U U U U 3 U U The city of Bend test involved pumping one of the wells at the city's Rock Bluff well field south of town at 722 gal/min for a period of 24 hours. This well produces from basaltic lava and cinders of the Deschutes Formation, which is predominantly lava at this location. The response was measured in a nearly identical observation well 210 ft from the pumped well. There was no access to the pumped well for water -level measurements. The drawdown in the observation well was less than 0.06 ft, which is well within the range of water -level fluctuations caused by external influences such as barometric pressure changes and earth tides. The small drawdown due to pumping could not be satisfactorily separated from the water -level fluctuations due to external influences, and no quantitative analysis was possible. The small drawdown in this well, however, suggests a large transmissivity of a magnitude similar to that estimated from the city of Redmond well test. The fourth aquifer test conducted for this study involved pumping a production well belonging to Juniper Utilities, south of Bend, at 1,300 gal/min for just over 3 hours. This well produces from basaltic lava with minor interbedded cinders which are likely correlative to the Deschutes Formation. Drawdown and recovery were measured in an observation well 35 ft from the pumped well and open to the same water -bearing strata. There was no access for water - level measurements in the pumped well. The draw- down in the observation well, which totaled 1.14 ft after 3 hours, did not follow the Theis curve for a confined aquifer (Lohman, 1979). The drawdown departed from the Theis curve about 7 minutes into the test in a manner indicating that drawdown was less than would be expected for a confined system. After about 50 minutes the water level stabilized and drawdown did not increase for the duration of the test, indicating that the cone of depression encountered a source of recharge equal to the well discharge. The likely source of recharge was leakage from large (hundreds of cubic feet per second) unlined irrigation canals within 3,000 ft of the pumped well. Analysis of recovery data also indicated the aquifer received recharge during the test. The short duration of this test and the atypical response in the observation well precluded a reliable estimation of hydraulic parameters. The relatively small total drawdown in the observation well suggests a large transmissivity. 17 Results from seven additional aquifer tests conducted by consultants are summarized in table 1. Most of these tests were affected by one or more problems such as insufficient response in observation wells, measurement errors, variable pumping rates, effects of well losses in the pumping well, and recharge effects. Time -drawdown data from five of the tests were not suitable for type -curve analysis, but the tests did allow calculation of the specific capacity of the wells. Specific capacity is a general measure of well performance and is calculated by dividing the rate of pumping by the amount of drawdown and typically has units of gallons per minute per foot of drawdown. Transmissivities were estimated from specific -capacity data using an iterative technique based on the Jacob modified nonequilibrium formula (Ferris and others, 1962, p. 98; Vorhis, 1979). Transmissivity estimates from aquifer tests are affected by well construction and the thickness of the aquifer open to the well. In order to allow meaningful comparisons between aquifer tests, transmissivity estimates can be normalized by dividing them by the length of the open interval below the water table in the pumped well to derive an estimated hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic -conductivity values so calcu- lated are included in table 1. Hydraulic -conductivity estimates derived from aquifer tests vary more than two orders of magnitude, from less than 10 to nearly 1,900 ft/d. The variation in hydraulic conductivity of subsurface materials is undoubtedly much greater than indicated by the tests. Production zones in wells are not a true sample of the range in hydraulic con- ductivities in the subsurface because the wells are selectively open to the most permeable strata and less permeable zones are not represented. Hydraulic -conductivity values from the available tests do not correlate well with rock type. Tests yield a wide range of values from both volcanic and sedimen- tary aquifers. This is not surprising because hydraulic conductivities of both types of materials can range over several orders of magnitude (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, table 2.2). The small number of tests precludes determination of the spatial distribution of hydraulic conductivity. The highest hydraulic -conductivity values, however, are associated with Deschutes Formation materials, including basaltic lava and vent deposits, and sand and gravel deposits likely belong- ing to the ancestral Deschutes River channel facies described by Smith (1986). U_ F 1' Well -Yield Tests Another source of information on subsurface hydraulic characteristics are the well -yield tests con- ducted by drillers and reported on the well logs sub- mitted on completion of all new wells. Well -yield tests generally consist of a single drawdown measurement taken after a well has been pumped at a specified rate for a specified length of time, typically 1 hour. Well - yield tests allow determination of a well's specific capacity, which can be used to estimate transmissivity as described previously. Specific capacity is only a semiquantitative measure of well performance in that it can vary with pumping rate. Specific -capacity values can be used to calculate only rough estimates of the aquifer transmissivity and provide no information on the aquifer storage characteristics. Although transmis- sivity values calculated from specific -capacity tests are only approximate, they can be used to evaluate the rel- ative differences in hydraulic characteristics between different geographic areas if data are available from a sufficient number of wells. Well -yield tests were evaluated from 1,501 field -located water wells (raw data are in Caldwell and Truini, 1997). Of these tests, 390 were air-lift tests, in which the water is blown out of the well using compressed air, precluding measurement of drawdown and calculation of specific capacity. An additional 152 tests had information that was incomplete in some other way. Of the 959 remaining yield tests, 453 had pumping (or bailing) rates that did not sufficiently stress the aquifer to produce a measurable effect in the well, and zero drawdown is indicated on the well log. This precludes calculation of a specific capacity because if drawdown is zero then specific capacity is infinite, a physical impossibility. Eliminating wells with drawdown shown as zero from the data set would have selectively removed wells representing the most transmissive areas. To avoid biasing the data in this manner, wells with zero drawdown were arbitrarily assigned a drawdown of 1 ft, which is the limit of precision to which most drillers report water levels, and probably the limit to which it is measured during bailer tests. Statistics for specific capacities derived from well -yield tests in the study area and from various subareas within the study area are shown in table 2. A map showing the geographic distribution of transmissivity estimates derived from well -yield tests can be used to help understand spatial variations in aquifer characteristics. When creating such maps, it is important to include only wells with comparable construction. Certain wells, such as high -yield municipal and irrigation wells are constructed to be very efficient, and consequently have higher specific capacities than sntall-yield household wells in the same aquifer. Therefore, it is desirable to use only wells with comparable construction when creating maps showing transmissivities estimated from specific -capacity data. The geographic distribution of transmissivities estimated from specific capacities of 623 household wells is shown in figure 5. Although a wide range of transmissivity values occurs throughout the areas represented, some subtle patterns are apparent. Table 2. Statistics for transmissivities (square feet per day) estimated from specific -capacity data for subareas in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon I', includes wells outside the listed subareasl 25th 75th Number Area Minimum Percentile Median Percentile Maximum of wells La Pine Subbasin Alluvium 7.1 342 901 1,953 114,297 175 Deschutes Formation West 11.4 617 1,917 3,587 1,458,724 382 Deschutes Formation East 12.6 1,099 2,337 4,063 221,887 209 Inactive Margin 1.1 46.2 796 2,225 59,683 92 All located wells* 1.1 518 1,821 3,660 1,458,724 959 4 18 The La Pine subbasin, the area just north of Bend, Jefferson County, and the eastern margin of the study area show the highest incidence of wells with low transmissivity values. The areas east of Bend, between the Crooked and Deschutes Rivers near Redmond, and west of Sisters show the highest incidence of high transmissivity wells. This distribution is consistent with the results of aquifer tests and with the regional geology. The areas where transmissivities appear to be slightly higher coincide with regions of coarse-grained sedimentary deposits, such as the glacial outwash west of Sisters and the ancestral Deschutes River channel deposits in the Redmond area. The areas where trans missivities appear lower coincide, at least in part, with regions where fine-grained materials predominate, such as the La Pine subbasin, or regions where older rock or sediments derived from older rock predominate, such as the eastern and northern parts of the upper Deschutes Basin. The aquifer tests described above provide infor- mation on aquifer characteristics at specific locations, and taken as a group provide a general picture of the minimum range of conditions and of geographic varia- tions in the areas represented. The specific -capacity values from well -yield tests provide a rough picture of the geographic distribution of transmissivity. The aquifer -test and specific -capacity data described in this section, however, represent only a small part of the flow system. There are large geographic areas in the upper basin, such as the Cascade Range and Newberry Volcano area, where there are virtually no data. Moreover, in areas of the upper Deschutes Basin where wells are plentiful, most wells penetrate only the upper part of the saturated zone and may not be representative of the deep parts of the flow system. GROUND -WATER RECHARGE The Deschutes Basin ground -water flow system is recharged by infiltration of precipitation (rainfall and snowmelt), leakage from canals, infiltration of applied irrigation water that percolates below the root zone (on-farm losses), and leakage from streams. Recharge from all of these processes is discussed in this section. The amounts of recharge from each of the processes cannot be simply summed to determine the net recharge for the upper Deschutes Basin because some water cycles into and out of the ground -water system twice. For example, the water that recharges the ground -water system through canal leakage originates as streamflow, a large percentage of which originates as springflow in the Cascade Range. The ground water supplying the springs originates from infiltration of precipitation in the Cascade Range. Infiltration of Precipitation Recharge from precipitation occurs where rainfall or snowmelt infiltrates and percolates through the soil zone and, eventually, reaches the saturated part of the ground -water flow system. Recharge is the quantity of water remaining after runoff and evapotranspiration take place. The spatial and temporal distribution of ground- water recharge to the upper Deschutes Basin from infiltration of precipitation were estimated for water years 1962-97 using a water -balance model. The model, referred to as the Deep Percolation Model, or DPM, was developed by Bauer and Vaccaro (1987) for a regional analysis of the Columbia Plateau aquifer system in eastern Washington. The DPM is based on well-established empirical relations that quantify processes such as interception and evaporation, snow accumulation and melt, plant transpiration, and runoff. The DPM has been successfully applied to estimate regional recharge for studies of the Goose Lake Basin in Oregon and California (Morgan, 1988), the Portland Basin in Oregon and Washington (Snyder and others, 1994), and several other areas in Oregon and Washington. A detailed description of the applica- tion of the DPM to the Deschutes Basin, including the data input, can be found in Boyd (1996). The following sections provide a summary of the methodology and results. The DPM was applied to the entire upper Des- chutes Basin by subdividing the basin into 3,471 equal - sized grid cells with dimensions of 6,000 ft by 6,000 ft (fig. 6). The DPM computed a daily water balance at each cell using input data describing the location, elevation, slope, aspect, mean annual precipitation, land cover, and soil characteristics of each cell. Daily data (precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation) from six weather stations (table 3) in the basin were used to compute daily moisture input and potential evapotranspiration at each cell. The six climate stations used were selected because they had the longest periods of record with the fewest occurrences of missing data among stations in the basin. Climate data were obtained from the Oregon Climate Service (1999). 19 44'30' 44'00' 43'30 122"00' 123"00' Figure 6. Deep Percolation Model grid and estimated recharge from infiltration of precipitation, 1993-95. 20 The DPM requires that several types of data be specified for each cell: long-term average annual precipitation, land -surface elevation, slope, aspect, land -cover type, and soil type. Long-term average annual precipitation at each cell was derived from a statewide distribution for the 1961-90 period estimated by the Oregon Climate Service using the PRISM model (Daly and Nielson, 1992). PRISM uses digital topographic data to account for orographic effects on precipitation. The DPM uses the ratio of the long-term annual average precipitation at the cell to the long-term average at each climate station to interpolate daily precipitation values at each cell. The mean elevation, slope, and aspect of each cell were calculated from 90 -meter digital elevation data using a geographic information system (GIS). Elevation was used with temperature lapse rates to interpolate daily temperature values at each cell from the nearest climate stations. Slope at each cell was used to compute runoff and aspect was used to estimate incident solar radiation in the calculation of potential evapotranspiration. Land -cover data from the Oregon Gap Analysis Program (J. Kagan, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, written commun., 1992) was used to specify four land -cover types in the model: forest, sage and juniper, grass, and surface water. These types covered 61, 36, 2, and 1 percent of the basin, respectively. Recharge from irrigated croplands was not estimated using DPM; estimates of recharge to these areas from canal leakage and on-farm losses are described later in this section. For each land -cover type, the maximum plant rooting depth, foliar cover fraction, and interception storage capacity were specified based on literature values (Boyd, 1996). A statewide soil database (STATSGO) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991) was used to specify soil type and associated parameters at each cell. A cluster analysis was used to aggregate the 26 general soil types found within the basin into 10 hydrologic soil types (Boyd, 1996). For each hydrologic soil type, thickness, texture, field capacity, specific yield, horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and vertical hydraulic conductivity were specified. The DPM was used to compute daily water balances at each cell from January 1961 through November 1997. The daily recharge values were used to compute mean monthly and annual recharge values. The distribution of mean annual recharge for water years 1993-95 (fig. 6) illustrates the strong relation between precipitation (fig. 3) and recharge. Recharge for the 1993-95 period was calculated to correspond to the calibration period for a steady-state numerical ground -water flow model. Computed recharge from precipitation ranged from less than 1 in./yr in the lower elevations, where annual precipi- tation is less than 12 inches, to more than 130 inches in the high Cascade Range, where soils are thin and precipitation locally exceeds 200 inches. The mean recharge for the basin during the 1993-95 water years was 10.6 in./yr; converted to a mean annual value for the 4,500 mi2 basin, this is the equivalent of about 3,500 ft3/s (cubic feet per second). Table 3. Weather stations used for estimation of recharge from infiltration of precipitation with the Deep Percolation Model [ID, identification; X, data collected] Station name Station ID Elevation, In feet Precipitation data Temperature data Solar -radiation data Bend 0694 Brothers 1067 Madras 5139 Prineville 6883 Redmond 7062 Wickiup Dam 9316 3,650 X X 4,640 X 2,230 X 2,840 X X 3,060 X X X 4,360 X X 21 v Between 1962 and 1997, estimated recharge ranged from less than 3 inches in the drought years of 1977 and 1994 to nearly 23 inches in 1982 (fig. 7). The mean for the 26 -year period was 11.4 in./yr, which converts to an annual rate of about 3,800 ft3/s. The estimated evapotranspiration for the basin is rela- tively constant from year to year because the effects of above or below normal precipitation are dampened by storage in the soil moisture zone. Runoff is a relatively small component of the total water budget in the Deschutes Basin due to high infiltration rates of the permeable volcanic soils. The Deschutes and Metolius Rivers are noted for their extraordinarily constant flows that are sustained primarily by ground -water inflow. Recharge averages about 35-40 percent of annual precipitation within the basin, but ranges from less than 5 percent at low elevations, where potential evapotranspiration greatly exceeds precipitation, to as much as 70 percent at higher elevations, where annual precipitation may be several times greater than potential evapotranspiration. Manga (1997) developed a physically based model using the Boussinesq equation (Boussinesq, 1904) to estimate recharge rates within the contribut- 50 45 40 35 oC 30 U1 } CL 25 U) w 2 U Z 20 15 L 1 0960 ing areas of four spring -dominated streams tributary to the Deschutes River above Benham Falls. Results agreed well with those from the DPM for the area. Within the inferred contributing areas to all four streams, mean DPM recharge was 29 in./yr (1962-97) and mean recharge estimated by Mango, was 28 in./yr (1939-91). Manga's estimated recharge averages 56 percent of precipitation within the contributing area of the four streams, while the DPM recharge was approximately 45 percent of precipitation within the same area. About 84 percent of recharge from infiltration of precipitation occurs in the Deschutes Basin between November and April (fig. 8). According to the DPM, recharge rates peak in December and again in March— April. The December recharge peak results from deep percolation of precipitation after heavy fall rains and early winter snowfall and melt have saturated soils. After January, precipitation is reduced, but snowmelt sustains recharge at higher elevations through April. By May, increasing evapotranspiration begins to deplete soil moisture storage and reduce recharge rates to nearly zero. 7-\,. I \/ \ n 1 1965 19/u IUIU WATER YEAR Figure 7. Annual mean components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model for water years 1962-97. 22 X F z O M Q W Q. W W U Z -2 Precipitation – – – – Runoff — — - Recharge ----- Evapotranspiration -- Soil moisture change — — Snowpack change -------- Potential evapotranspiration NI 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUI AUG SFP Figure 8. Mean monthly components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model for water years 1962-97. Canal Leakage There are approximately 720 miles of canals and laterals that carry water diverted from the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers to more than 160,000 acres of irrigated lands in the basin. Many of the canals are cut into young basaltic lava that is blocky and highly fractured; these canals lose large quantities of water. Most of the leakage percolates to the water table and is a significant source of ground -water recharge in the irrigated parts of the basin (fig. 9). Canal leakage was estimated for the 1994 irri- gation season (May—September) using several sources of information, including: (1) diversions into canals measured at gaging stations operated by the OWRD, (2) estimates of irrigated acreage and crop -water applications from satellite imagery, (3) estimates of canal leakage rates from ponding experiments and surveys of canal -bottom geology by BOR (Bureau of Reclamation, 1991a, 1991b), and (4) estimates of irrigation efficiency by BOR (Bureau of Reclamation, 1993). The 1994 canal leakage volume was calculated as the residual of the volume of water diverted into canals minas the volume of water delivered to farms. 23 The areal distribution of canal leakage in the main canals and laterals was estimated on the basis of information on canal -bottom geology and ponding experiments. To determine the on-farm deliveries from each canal in 1994, it was necessary to estimate the irrigated acres within each cdnal service area, the amount of water actually needed for the crops to grow (crop -water requirement), and the average irrigation efficiency within the canal service area. The actual crop -water application is equal to the crop -water requirement divided by the irrigation efficiency. For example, if the crop -water requirement were 2.0 ft/yr (feet per year) and the irrigation efficiency were 0.50, the crop -water application would be 4.0 ft/yr. Satellite imagery was used to map 164,000 acres of irrigated croplands in the basin in 1994 and classify them according to the relative magnitude of crop -water requirements. The three classifications used were low, medium, and high water requirement crops. Of the total irrigated acreage, low water requirement crops made up 33,000 acres, medium water requirement crops made up 24,000 acres, and high water requirement crops made up 107,000 acres. 44°30' 44°00' 122°30' 123°00' ' r/r;Iflf U,1ir a:'analAe� �SF11,ir•n a, „a �,; •. 9 GP , Si niustus `tY 10 ��%,• Lake Bilh' l� ",n'�� Madas Chinook Ricer t +( � n t %Ncn slack �' I Re.r �rvoir 12 4 \. Squaw CreekC anal service a eaIL N IL 13 20 Gad 01ot P tel Canal' �{ 126 self Vl(:r+;ilela �t I t. R� Sts e1'; 14 Swalley 1 Canal Redtt��nd I �J/o I ti' Gad 115 16 rl z Bend G� 17 �4S 10 1 12 EXPLANATION Canal leakage—In cubic feet per second per mile 0-1 w._.. _.._.. 1 - 3 3-5 5-20 20-160 0 5 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS ervic Q area • �% a ` flc riiievi River Ochuco 2s Rc•s ?i r•a 1 X- Cent al Oregon L�G�`� Can4l service area -, A } Prins oh d 2e.cenvr oi r ED rno a a Cana 3 service w o 1 area 20 14 15 16 y 0 17 Figure 9. Mean annual recharge from canal leakage and on-farm losses in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95. 24 , 16 BendA ,. 44'00' 17 12 ai Prineville Reset-voil' r R3 R't Arno Cana service Cn -Q 17 1 3area 20 14 15 16 25 123'00' 122*30' 97 26 ca NC)ttl) Unit EXPLANATION Calla suavit;u are NI 1 on-farm losses—In inches per year Lake Ire a Ja Irrigated with no IOSS 0.1-2.5 Lake Bilh, Mad as 2.5-5.0 10 5.0-7.5 i. Vj i'li River 7.5-10.6 11 Creek 10 MILES 0 5 44030' CS i, I i 0 5 10 KILOMETERS Wa slack Res rvoir 12 SqL ACan one P le Cana ervic e reb-FW sel-Vic 13 area ;P 20 sic: 26 Ochoco ' IetS Res S I�s Swailey 26 4 Canal e(_1mond service Can Cen al Oregon 15 servic Can I service area ar o, rn I VL 16 BendA ,. 44'00' 17 12 ai Prineville Reset-voil' r R3 R't Arno Cana service Cn -Q 17 1 3area 20 14 15 16 25 Water -rights information from the OWRD was used to determine that ground water was the source of irriga- tion to approximately 13,000 acres, with surface water supplying the remaining 151,000 acres. The water requirement for each crop classifi- cation was estimated based on tables for the region (Cuenca and others, 1992; Bureau of Reclamation, 1995). County crop census data (Oregon State Univer- sity, Extension Service, written commun., 1996) was used to weight the crop -water requirements to reflect the variability of crops grown in different parts of the basin. Climatic variability was accounted for by divid- ing the study area into northern and southern regions and applying appropriate crop -water requirements to irrigated Iands in each region. The boundary between the regions coincides with the Deschutes—Jefferson County line (fig. 1). The low water requirement crop classification contained mostly fallow land; therefore, the water requirement was assumed to be zero for these areas. In 1994, medium water requirement crops were assumed to need 1.5 acre-feet per acre in the northern region and 1.7 ft in the southern region, while high water requirement crops were assumed to need 2.7 ft in the northern region and 2.4 ft in the southern region. Irrigation efficiency depends primarily on the method used to apply the irrigation water. Sprinkler irrigation is the most efficient method and typically results in efficiencies of 75 to 90 percent. Flood irrigation is the least efficient and efficiencies of 35 to 50 percent are typical (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). Irrigation efficiencies for each canal service area were estimated based on BOR studies in the basin (Bureau of Reclamation, 1993) and from interviews of local irrigation district and extension service personnel. The total irrigation -water deliveries to farms within each canal service area, Ic, in acre-feet per year, were calculated: 1, = (Ah x Ch/Ec) + (A,, x Cm/E,) where, Al, and A,,, are the areas of high and medium water -use crops, in acres, C1, and C,,, are the crop -water requirements for high and medium water -use crops, in feet per year, and Ec is the average irrigation efficiency for the canal service area, in decimal percent. Total 1994 diversions, irrigated acreage, on- farm deliveries, and canal leakage are listed for each major canal in table 4. Canal leakage rates vary greatly within the study area depending on the geology of the canal bottom, the degree to which cracks and voids have been filled by sediment, and the wetted perimeter of the canal. The estimated total leakage within each canal service area (table 4) was apportioned among the canal and laterals on the basis of information available from studies by the BOR (Bureau of Reclamation, 1991a, 1991b, 1993). The BOR conducted ponding experiments in several canal reaches and determined leakage rates ranging from 0.64 to 4.20 ft3/d/ft2. This information was extrapolated using geologic mapping of the canal bottoms to estimate leakage rates for most of the main canals and laterals in the study area (fig. 9). The wetted area of each canal reach was calculated from the average width, depth, and length of the canal. Leakage rates were multiplied by wetted area to obtain estimates of leakage from each canal reach within a canal service area. If the total leakage did not match the total estimated as the residual of diversions minus on-farm deliveries, then the leakage rates were adjusted until the totals matched. In 1994, 356,600 acre -ft, or 490 ft3/s, leaked through canal bottoms to become ground -water recharge (table 4). This amounted to 46 percent of the 770,400 acre -ft (1,060 ft3/s) diverted into canals in the upper Deschutes Basin. Canal leakage for the period 1905-97 was estimated for the basin assuming that the same proportion (46 percent) of diversions would be lost each year (fig. 10). Canal leakage peaked in the late 1950s when mean annual diversions were approximately 940,000 acre -ft (1,300 ft3/s) and nearly 435,000 acre -ft (600 ft3/s) was lost to ground- water recharge. 26 Figure 9 shows the distribution of canal leakage in the basin for 1993-95. The highest rates of leakage occur in reaches of the North Unit and Pilot Butte canals immediately east and north of Bend. In these reaches, canals are cut through highly fractured, blocky basalt and were estimated to lose an average of more than 20 ft3/s/mi (cubic feet per second per mile) during 1993-95. Table 4. Canal diversions, irrigated acreage, on-farm deliveries, and canal leakage, by major canal service,area, upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1994 [All values in acre-feet unless otherwise noted; ft/yr, feet per year; --- not applicable.] t Includes only high and medium water -use crops On -Farm Losses Applied irrigation water can be lost to evapo- ration (from droplets, wetted canopy, soil and water surfaces), wind drift, runoff, and deep percolation. All of these losses are considered on-farm losses; however, the contribution of deep -percolation losses to ground -water recharge was the part of the loss of direct interest to this study. On-farm losses are directly correlated with irrigation efficiency. Irrigation effi- ciency is the ratio of the depth of irrigation water used by the plant to the depth of irrigation water applied, expressed as a percentage. As shown in table 4, estimated mean irrigation efficiencies in the study area vary from 43 percent in areas where flooding is the primary method of application to 94 percent where sprinklers are the primary method. Literature values were used to estimate losses to evaporation, wind drift, and runoff. The percentage of applied irrigation water lost to these sources is highly variable and dependent on individual water - management practices and soil and climatic condi- tions. A maximum of 20 percent was assumed to be 27 lost to these sources throughout the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). For example, where the irrigation efficiency is 60 percent (60 percent of the applied water is used by the plant), of the remain- ing 40 percent of applied water, 20 percent is assumed to be lost to evaporation, wind drift, and runoff, while 20 percent is assumed to be lost to deep percolation. In 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. Mean annual recharge (1993-95) from deep percolation of on-farm losses was only about 49,000 acre -ft (68 ft3/s) (fig. 9). The service area for the North Unit canal is almost entirely irrigated by sprinkler; therefore, no recharge from on-farm losses were estimated in this area. In other areas, where a mixture of flood and sprinkler irrigation is used, up to 5 in./yr of recharge occurs from on-farm losses. Areas where flood irrigation is the predominant irrigation method receive recharge of up to 10 in./yr from on- farm losses. A B C D E F G Canal Irrigated Mean Crop -water Mean irrigation Estimated Canal diver- area 1 crop -water needs efficiency deliveries losses Canal sions (acres) requirement (ft/yr) (B x C) (percent) (D / E) (A -F) Arnold 26,570 2,310 2.25 5,200 0.50 10,400 16,170 Central Oregon 181,500 22,500 2.37 53,330 .43 124,020 57,480 North Unit 196,700 45,000 2.03 91,350 .94 97,180 99,520 Lone Pine 10,640 2,390 2.13 5,090 .89 5,720 4,920 Ochoco 75,000 16,600 2.12 35,190 .66 53,320 21,680 Peoples 6,500 1,540 2.21 3,400 .66 5,150 1,350 Pilot Butte 165,800 14,800 2.36 34,930 .43 81,230 84,570 Squaw Creek 26,400 5,450 1.50 8,180 .62 13,190 13,210 Tumalo 42,600 4,890 2.31 11,300 .60 18,830 23,770 Swalley 38,700 2,450 2.33 5,710 .51 11,200 27,500 Total 770,410 117,930 --- 253,680 --- 420,240 350,170 Average --- --- 2.15 --- .60 --- --- t Includes only high and medium water -use crops On -Farm Losses Applied irrigation water can be lost to evapo- ration (from droplets, wetted canopy, soil and water surfaces), wind drift, runoff, and deep percolation. All of these losses are considered on-farm losses; however, the contribution of deep -percolation losses to ground -water recharge was the part of the loss of direct interest to this study. On-farm losses are directly correlated with irrigation efficiency. Irrigation effi- ciency is the ratio of the depth of irrigation water used by the plant to the depth of irrigation water applied, expressed as a percentage. As shown in table 4, estimated mean irrigation efficiencies in the study area vary from 43 percent in areas where flooding is the primary method of application to 94 percent where sprinklers are the primary method. Literature values were used to estimate losses to evaporation, wind drift, and runoff. The percentage of applied irrigation water lost to these sources is highly variable and dependent on individual water - management practices and soil and climatic condi- tions. A maximum of 20 percent was assumed to be 27 lost to these sources throughout the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). For example, where the irrigation efficiency is 60 percent (60 percent of the applied water is used by the plant), of the remain- ing 40 percent of applied water, 20 percent is assumed to be lost to evaporation, wind drift, and runoff, while 20 percent is assumed to be lost to deep percolation. In 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. Mean annual recharge (1993-95) from deep percolation of on-farm losses was only about 49,000 acre -ft (68 ft3/s) (fig. 9). The service area for the North Unit canal is almost entirely irrigated by sprinkler; therefore, no recharge from on-farm losses were estimated in this area. In other areas, where a mixture of flood and sprinkler irrigation is used, up to 5 in./yr of recharge occurs from on-farm losses. Areas where flood irrigation is the predominant irrigation method receive recharge of up to 10 in./yr from on- farm losses. 1,400 1,300 -�-7 North Unit canal diversions �1 North Canal diversions 1,200 All other diversions Central Oregon Canal diversion 1,100 Total canal leakage 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Central Oregon 300 (242) 200 100 LJ Q 1900 1910 North Unit (295) Swellsy (53A) IV (47.9) beschules County Municipal Irrigation District (37.3) Ochoco Feed (32.5) Squaw Creek (44.6) Tumalo Creek (40.6) 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR Figure 10. Annual canal diversions and estimated annual mean canal leakage in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1905-97. (Mean annual discharge, in cubic feet per second, is shown in parentheses for the period of record for each diversion.) Stream Leakage Where the elevation of a stream is above that of the water table in adjacent aquifers, water can leak from the stream to the underlying strata and recharge the ground -water system. Such streams are termed losing streams. Conversely, in areas where the stream elevation is below that of adjacent aquifers, ground water can discharge to streams, increasing strearnflow. Such streams are termed gaining streams. In this study, ground -water flow from and to streams was estimated using data from a variety of sources. The primary sources of information were sets of strearnflow measurements known as seepage runs. A seepage run consists of a series of strearnflow measurements taken a few to several miles apart along a stream over a short enough period that temporal variations in strearnflow are minimal. Tributary inflow and diversions are measured as well. Any temporal changes in strearnflow occurring during the measure- ment period also are measured or otherwise accounted for. Seepage runs provide a snapshot of the rate and distribution of ground -water inflow to, or leakage 28 from, a stream; single seepage runs, however, do not provide information on temporal variations in stream gains and losses. Seepage runs were conducted along all major streams in the upper Deschutes Basin by OWRD, and multiple runs were conducted on certain streams. Data from the seepage runs were provided by Kyle Gorman, OWRD (written commun., 1994, 1995, 1996) and are presented in table 5. The methods used to measure streamflow have an inherent error of plus or minus 5 percent under good measurement conditions. Therefore, strearnflow variations of less than 5 percent measured between two points during a seepage run may represent measurement error and not an actual gain or loss. However, if the sum of such small gains or losses along a reach exceeds the likely measurement error, it is reasonable to assume there is an actual gain or loss. Data from stream -gaging stations also were useful in estimating the amount of ground water discharging to or leaking from streams. Because stream gages operate continuously, they can provide information on temporal changes in gains and losses. ... .'1....'. .. .'.'.....'..... ;':::: ::'.'7:''.' :[t...... ...:...........................f.l..'...l...........'.'....:: 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR Figure 10. Annual canal diversions and estimated annual mean canal leakage in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1905-97. (Mean annual discharge, in cubic feet per second, is shown in parentheses for the period of record for each diversion.) Stream Leakage Where the elevation of a stream is above that of the water table in adjacent aquifers, water can leak from the stream to the underlying strata and recharge the ground -water system. Such streams are termed losing streams. Conversely, in areas where the stream elevation is below that of adjacent aquifers, ground water can discharge to streams, increasing strearnflow. Such streams are termed gaining streams. In this study, ground -water flow from and to streams was estimated using data from a variety of sources. The primary sources of information were sets of strearnflow measurements known as seepage runs. A seepage run consists of a series of strearnflow measurements taken a few to several miles apart along a stream over a short enough period that temporal variations in strearnflow are minimal. Tributary inflow and diversions are measured as well. Any temporal changes in strearnflow occurring during the measure- ment period also are measured or otherwise accounted for. Seepage runs provide a snapshot of the rate and distribution of ground -water inflow to, or leakage 28 from, a stream; single seepage runs, however, do not provide information on temporal variations in stream gains and losses. Seepage runs were conducted along all major streams in the upper Deschutes Basin by OWRD, and multiple runs were conducted on certain streams. Data from the seepage runs were provided by Kyle Gorman, OWRD (written commun., 1994, 1995, 1996) and are presented in table 5. The methods used to measure streamflow have an inherent error of plus or minus 5 percent under good measurement conditions. Therefore, strearnflow variations of less than 5 percent measured between two points during a seepage run may represent measurement error and not an actual gain or loss. However, if the sum of such small gains or losses along a reach exceeds the likely measurement error, it is reasonable to assume there is an actual gain or loss. Data from stream -gaging stations also were useful in estimating the amount of ground water discharging to or leaking from streams. Because stream gages operate continuously, they can provide information on temporal changes in gains and losses. Most stream -gage data used in this section and the following section on ground -water discharge were from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS). Additional data were obtained from pub- lished compilations (U.S. Geological Survey, 1958; Oregon Water Resources Department, 1965). The locations of gaging stations used in this report are shown in figure 11, and the station numbers and names are listed in table 6. Some statistical summaries were taken from Moffatt and others (1990). Data from OWRD gages and irrigation diversions were provided by the OWRD (Kyle Gorman, written commun., 1998, 1999, 2000). Estimated stream gains and losses are presented in table 7 and shown graphically along with selected stream -gage locations in figure 12. Unless otherwise noted, the gain and loss rates in table 7 are assumed to represent average conditions. In the upper Deschutes Basin, losing streams are much less common than gaining streams (fig. 12). The conditions required for losing streams, a water -table elevation below the stream elevation, occur much less commonly than the conditions required for gaining streams. The rates of water loss from losing streams are usually much less than the rates of ground -water inflow to gaining reaches (fig. 12) because of differ- ences in the ways water enters and leaves streams. In the upper Deschutes Basin, water typically enters streams from springs issuing from highly fractured lava or coarse sedimentary deposits like sands and gravels. These springs commonly occur above river level (Ferns and others, 1996), and there is no mecha- nism by which the fractures or other openings through which the water emerges can be effectively blocked. The fractures and openings through which water leaks from losing streams, in contrast, are much more easily blocked and sealed. Streams typically carry sediment suspended in the water column and along the bottom. Over long periods of time, these materials can infiltrate the openings and essentially seal them, - greatly reducing the permeability of the streambed. This process is likely particularly important in streams, such as those in most of the Deschutes Basin, that flow in canyons and do not meander and, there- fore, do not periodically establish new channels. Irri- gation canals lose more water than streams over a given length. This is because canals are much younger features and have had much less time to be sealed by sediment, and possibly because canal water typically carries very little suspended sediment. Even though the amount of water lost from streams to the ground -water system is only a fraction of the amount that flows from the ground -water system to streams, stream leakage is still an important source of recharge in certain areas. Leakage from streams, lakes, and reservoirs recharges the ground -water system in some areas in the southern part of the basin. Some of the high lakes, such as Hosmer Lake and Elk Lake ($g. 1) are essentially ground -water fed, and their leakage represents little, if any, net ground -water recharge. Others, such as Sparks and Devils Lakes, are fed at least in part by perennial streams. The net ground- water recharge from these lakes is unknown, but much of it likely emerges as springflow in the Deschutes River and tributaries above Crane Prairie Reservoir. Crane Prairie Reservoir also loses water through leakage to the ground -water system. This is the only reservoir in the southern part of the basin for which sufficient gages have been operated to allow a good estimate of seepage losses. The average loss from Crane Prairie Reservoir between 1939 and 1950 was computed to be 60,000 acre-ft/yr, or about 83 ft3/s (U.S. Geological Survey, 1958). A more detailed analysis indicated that the leakage ranges from about 30 to 135 ft3/s, depending on the stage of the reservoir (Robert F. Main, OWRD, written commun., 1999). Some of this loss probably returns to the Deschutes River through springs within about 3 or 4 miles below Crane Prairie Dam, along what is now an arm of Wickiup Reservoir. It is probable, however, that some of this water contributes to the regional ground -water flow system. The water budget of Wickiup Reservoir is not as well understood as that of Crane Prairie Reservoir. Although the major streams entering Wickiup Reservoir are gaged, there is substantial spring flow into the western parts of the reservoir along the Deschutes River and Davis Creek. A comparison of annual mean gaged inflow and outflow from Wickiup Reservoir from 1939 to 1991 showed that annual mean net spring flow into the reservoir from the west ranged from 308 to 730 ft3/s and averaged 486 ft3/s. This value does not include evaporation, which is consid- ered negligible. This inflow rate varies with climatic conditions and apparently with the stage -dependent losses from Crane Prairie Reservoir (Bellinger, 1994). Although there is net inflow to the reservoir, there is seepage from the reservoir as well. Sinkholes develop periodically, into which large amounts of water drain. 29 .Q O ^ V c w O V N � � U � O g C a,rn � y6y� m y ED N 20 r O u vi U rLtn n. d � rL 0 42, _ 4 � C y W r E o cif E ; CL W cn C L O C O V 'C A aCO te; D �°v i G C � C � O p > Nb> CC C o � � H C M S2 N c C O p E �, O ODy0 L 'O � d O N �'w E: d E N E o cti E E E� o „ N t N E 0 ca E,�„ n V o � o cc G� C7 oon eEi a0 d� C E E 0 U d M O d) C d E in F aO r- rrnO N00 , 1 4 � O) r -:i i i i : i i i i i i i M .--i V7 V) V) V) dN' 00 V) N V) V) O �O��ONOO I d•�O ^QCT SSS �G er MfVOOO 4 c V N � 'C � Vl 8 Cd � � w a ° 8 0 o' a 00 \ON 0o 00 i i' 010 i C b 3!,' i i i i i aO r- rrnO N00 , 1 4 � O) r -:i i i i : i i i i i i i M .--i V7 V) V) V) dN' 00 V) N V) V) O �O��ONOO I d•�O ^QCT SSS �G er MfVOOO 4 N � � Vl 00 M 7 C O O S r� V) O� O) O) 7 Cl Cl! (7) Cl 7 00 �o %n OM M V10�r- V) V) V) V) V) V) N V)MN M 00°, N 00 \ON 0o 00 i i' 010 i C �0,� 3!,' i i i i i i Q;y i i i NNNNNNN �o �c �o O) z O) %C �c \D �o �c �o °) O) z T O) z N N N N N N N O) O) O) z O) O) S a O O O O O O O O O O y N N N H aaaaaaa (,) MMMMMMM 000 00 O 000 U V)CV 0O 7 n �c�C-l'� I-O\D-•^MooO 'DO -444.: +1M )0 M V)r+ 00 co r- V) � M N OoON M � � V) O �0 C�00°) —, 0 0) 01 00 N OoOMN.�O,O -' N - N S S da O LZI A 001000 MO) O �OM00 y t-kn Mi- O00000 a a� u OO Vl X7000 a CV CV N N O N M i V 00 00 0 r+ O l; Lw a , N )O N 41 0°)0 Vl i O i M O O a� N � N 3N N .0 N N N° 7 o aU u u °. c ons 'C U 3 a Ca •--� C3. i N rr N N 0 � Vl 00 M 7 C O O S r� V) O� O) O) 7 Cl Cl! (7) Cl 7 00 �o %n OM M V10�r- V) V) V) V) V) V) N V)MN M 00°, N 00 \ON 0o 00 Vl7"It M OOO V) V) V) In V) V) V) V) V) V) V) (T O) V) V) V) °) �o �c �o O) z O) %C �c \D �o �c �o °) O) z T O) z N N N N N N N O) O) O) z O) O) S a O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N aaaaaaa 0OOOOOa 0 0OO 000 as a a aaaaa 00OWntn0tn n n W V)CV 0O 7 n �c�C-l'� I-O\D-•^MooO 'DO -444.: +1M )0 M V)r+ 00 co r- V) � M N OoON M � � V) O �0 C�00°) —, 0 0) 01 00 N OoOMN.�O,O -' - S S 8 8 O tn r � x a a� u a p- was N o 0 0 c U -� 3 N � N 3N N .0 N N N° 7 o aU u u °. c ons 'C U 3 a Ca .G+ .7 y N ou e ..� q on x C ao c u c u L x N c N �'" c ro'� y cn o ° a. pp :3 CIS mo b= on c u u �" o° 3 . N N on c a.n Z.2 :: C, � ucn N o0 0 �'n o 3❑ b4 u oa cn' on C `) �v�0.�f1C.� °� x o 0 o ��j �5° c o° AVO Y 0� 0 A cn c a C �' =— v O O y C N 0 0°A y? i 0 o.�° cs�d a� cdd �a � � � R � o o D a o - :° o n Uxu ¢¢30: v�V) 0 .°D � oax< a� a� a� z z C � a� u ca a..��xca .� co33v�a�U 30 '0-0 c 23 U U C y.� U Y' � •G cwtO u No u >' t/1 ro as " u Co � Cp Q) d 3 5 C7 .i U Vj U N Q ai vi on vi ti C 0 r � c u 0 � o Lam]. 3 bo c � o C O E rE A N y 0 0b U a 0 > O O 0 cn T- 0 a cc,11 � �cc vii G G O N � O �E $ C E O �w aC .0 E� E N E' EEE o „E c � a d - u E ro N C EwN N E is e U 7 � E E � E ui A c Iv .0 9-5.9 V c ro E E 0 mrs-M 0 F- t�� r N ro 00 r l,� 00 O V Cl! t� a a OMMO ^CS N b0 ^ ^00O C�.-•i.-. DD ..�� , d' NON r N E 0 W W t a a 600. "O VI M 001 ch 000 6 00. M M M M N N N N N N N 6eli �0 N N^ G A tn 8 8 O NM[�00'•+NoOv1�tO�t •tom 04 � .0 0� a a N 0� v.° N M �t M I' M M M ••-� N N M d F 3� a � W. W. c � OOF�� 0 0 to O O ZI w Q En 0 0, > U 3 w o 0 "' c o> 60 C C p C g H F ro 00 r l,� 00 O V Cl! t� O^ t C\ M C, \0 M O, \0 d\ o 00 0 OMMO ^CS N N N N (14 M d ^ ^00O C�.-•i.-. DD ..�� , d' NON r N i i i C N N N N W -W-' W) W-) W)kn �n vi tn W) W-) �n v) �n W-)v� W-)�n �, W -)vi M N00 kn WMNNO V)O vI I-N^0�M00 - 00r- 600. "O VI M 001 ch 000 6 00. M M M M N N N N N N N 6eli �0 N N^ G A tn 8 8 O NM[�00'•+NoOv1�tO�t •tom 04 � 'Rtto � C 0� .r(V M4 V1 kfi�6Vl , i M. -•Nle �o rF �O , , i N 0� v.° N M �t M I' M M M ••-� N N M d F 3� a � W. W. c � OOF�� 0 0 to O O ZI w Q En 0 0, > U 3 w o 0 "' c o> 60 C C p C g b 00 F. .n W �; ° to W `° C4 c 0.R' •� 0n m c� a i !� °° >/- .� � O v, :d •O y ..0 U V ca O w to � o W w.r0' oid0 W w C. 3U cn v 0. az p E o b p u amiU abiLL) H N .r- aaHi C p 3 w c`"i 0 0o�a_ �a�d�o ou;i Cn .� 0— o o 90Fa000FOCQ.a Mx C4cncnfAA UFQU 31 �O �O 1257O �D zb --——————————�O V'1 7 U V'1 W) h %n W) W) V1 V'1 V'1 V1 WI)W) Vl vl tn W) W) W) � � v A U y 10t`O NC �o Ooncn 000000 ^O�pnp ; �OOOOOC, ro , OCV d' cV N mON a, ^ ro 00 r l,� 00 O V Cl! t� a\ C\m N' ' Nt--�o Mr10 Vl 00O N MMI• ' W) ' MW) �o NON�o"o o0 OMMO ^CS N N N N (14 M d ^ N NN N N NNNN N NNN C14 o N cy, C7, C\C7, C\ I'rt V I'�C,o,C\��0\��o aaaa C N N N N W -W-' W) W-) W)kn �n vi tn W) W-) �n v) �n W-)v� W-)�n �, W -)vi M N00 kn WMNNO V)O vI I-N^0�M00 - 00r- 600. "O VI M 001 ch 000 6 00. M M M M N N N N N N N 6eli �0 N N^ G A tn 8 8 y 8 N tn 04 � 'Rtto � C to U > n N 0� v.° 0. O 0 0o0co a � F 3� a � W. W. c � OOF�� 0 0 to O O ZI w Q En 0 0, > U 3 w o 0 "' c o> 60 C C p C g b 00 F. .n W �; ° to W `° C4 c 0.R' •� 0n m c� a i !� °° >/- .� � O v, :d •O y ..0 U V ca O w to � o W w.r0' oid0 W w C. 3U cn 0q 0. az p E o b p u amiU abiLL) H N .r- aaHi C p 3 w c`"i 0 0o�a_ �a�d�o ou;i Cn .� 0— o o 90Fa000FOCQ.a Mx C4cncnfAA UFQU 31 44'30' 44"00 43"3 123"00' vvar Sps ring 140925 NNOte`r for Pelt `s � Mt 14090400 Dam a mLake I * Jefferson Simt stu l�N �i 14091500 � l Rel� rso ero Lake Billy Round " .10,4ig r L11 C 9 Chinook Butt Meto iu art s am 0 1 o!e 4090350 Iver"`y • `' f Z ) Abbot C .2 ��2 140875 r / of V� Culve [r anyon C? �I 1407 50 • reek Three Jack Ct- 14088500 P>�874 Fingered First .Cr Alder, a Haystack Jack 14088 t,ak,9� Camp �Pr4 - b,�- - o` Reservoir Cree�Sherman 4' �' 26 *Black rJ� Stee ekt Sant am uttle Butte P all Pass Lake I' t fetrebonhe l V�a� o ��'' •� �-",Lowe - 9 � _.� Washington v� - PJ�O Brldg r�. HoL_sk Cline ' ]'iedinond , all �m , Tc� Awbre 30 Bend ep1ralOte;3bn P }�iaf Q� Atpol .. Sister McKenzie - Pass t' 1407500 North Sister iddle / ��- Sister Soull Broken Siisst/er Top 1407 ` Sparks * eldJe Gt �o. j1E c Su7h j L �l kqqe.. t ` tosmer t Lake 140645 �"� Lava 10640 CJ Lake qpm; Sr CO Q Cultu P6 13050500 140638 /Y U Lak I 14050000 /Q' 1405 140 7500 /• Dei fiver 2 e a� , o pu`.nrl 0\525 Prairie es rvoir < J� Newberr�P% Volcgrot <I, y p Pauline Lake 9 eib�4054� ® QQ ¢ .� aulir,aC.rLakes� 1� _ �i * A,'ioore C pa'4 056500! - 4063000 Paulina dem "' eek WickiuO F" La Peak �a aak 1 Reservoi Z Pine 91' Study ares youn EXPLANATION 1406301 Stream gage an U.S. Geologies Survey gaging station number 0 5 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS Figure 11. Location of selected stream -gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. 32 Table 6.Station numbers, names, and mean annual flow for selected gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon [All data are from Moffatt and others (1990) unless noted; OWRD, Oregon Water Resources Departmentl Station number Station name Mean annual flow Period of record 14050000 Deschutes River below Snow Creek, near La Pine 151 1938 to 1987 14050500 Cultus River above Cultus Creek, near La Pine 63 1923 to 1987 14051000 Cultus Creek above Crane Prairie Reservoir, near La Pine 22 1924 to 1962 14052000 Deer Creek above Crane Prairie Reservoir, near La Pine 7.5 1924 to 1987 14052500 Quinn River near La Pine 24 1938 to 1987 14054500 Browns Creek near La Pine 38 1923 to 1987 14055100 Davis Creek (OWRD gage data)1 191 1939 to 1942 14055500 Odell Creek near Crescent 82 1913 to 1976 14055600 Odell Creek (OWRD gage data, gage several miles 126 1970 to 1990 downstream of gage 14055500)2 14056500 Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir, near La Pine 754 1943 to 1987 14057500 Fall River near La Pine 150 1938 to 1987 14061000 Big Marsh Creek near Hoey Ranch, near Crescent 72 1912 to 1958 14063000 Little Deschutes River near La Pine 208 1924 to 1987 14063800 Deschutes River at Peters Ranch (OWRD gage data) 1 1,210 1944 to 1953 14064000 Deschutes River at Camp Abbott Bridge (OWRD gage data) 1 1,478 1944 to 1953 14064500 Deschutes River at Benham Falls, near Bend 1,480 1944 to 1987 14066000 Deschutes River below Lava Island, near Bend 1,380 1943 to 1965 14070500 Deschutes River below Bend 377 1957 to 1987 14073001 Tumalo Creek near Bend 101 1924 to 1987 14075000 Squaw Creek near Sisters 105 1906 to 1987 14076500 Deschutes River near Culver 929 1953 to 1987 14087400 Crooked River below Opal Springs, near Culver 1,610 1962 to 1987 14087500 Crooked River near Culver 1,560 1920 to 1960 14088000 Lake Creek near Sisters 52 1918 to 1987 14088500 Metolius River at Allingham Ranger Station, 376 1911 to 1912 near Sisters3 14090350 Jefferson Creek near Camp Sherman 94.9 1984 to 1999 14090400 Whitewater River near Camp Sherman4 86.6 1983 to 1999 14091500 Metolius River near Grandview 1,500 1912 to 1987 14092500 Deschutes River near Madras 4,750 1964 to 1987 I Oregon Water Resources Department (1965), Z Kyle Gorman, OWRD, written commun. (1999). 3 U.S. Geological Survey (1958). 4 Hubbard and others (2000). W 34 �o a, 0 k V o 00 �Iy y r yy y 00 b0 M O N M •> Y pj � N � bA OD g E U en Q r. h a CC U N �0 E 0 O� O y w ca O O b E .�. .n 30 N `O CIS w p x aEi Cl. c d >0 3 3 ao o 3 p y co N a� �❑ b pp ❑❑ b :: g g g g V) y °o CD c g oo 0 o O0 O t W �o O C q M_ �O o y 0 O� O� O� b0 -n O� V1 b '� y y td N _ �o �o �o s o s m� o �^ bo ON 0-- �� tMa, Cd a a a a O O � o- �'°�+ w� w0°` �� N N N 04 Emro N N ...i vi cd w 00 rn vi 4) a N -�o ,E7, aEi o 00 0 0 oCy " �± N U d N N N cd b OSA M G C� G E E E A y cn a a r A A A .� A 3 3 y a �� 00 o �� vUi 3 94 3 3 3 a0 3 3 3 y° �° h 0�8 cn. 6;.. O 0 0 0 Ovi 0 0 O cn o O cn a (� M tn E L E y O t� X W O N a u 00 I� 3 3: 0 0 2 o 6 v, rn C N C±. Qui Xi N (+ C W W) O o to j 3 r� > on oG a cs: o n; id T y O 0 r+ as e _ d °° U 'oon x' o A '� en co s 00 �� w E x o c E o 3 � o p �A a� U �� ° "N ° O M " ° A" N `' on a N Ar CC = -0 to bA N ^7 N C4 4. N •C 0 3 Ll ,n 'd U .-. 700 o— .O cd vi _y U p, G; O p4 a 0 �,' >. v C�4 0 °' '� a0i C', o w ` o y cmc c c° oo .n Gy. 00 g cL' 4) � c2 E crnti� U '^ oQw °vNc�v LT. b O�^ u � � � > > b �o°° 0 � tn. ¢ U 3x x C7 z u 0 xa; act ¢ O ] 4. N J ti >oj ti CJ > W > ✓I ^ U U Q r W E {Q H N N N U m r -i l4 U Qi y r A O D C -. ti L U U v y `�_ b b Q Q ca Q w o cc U a O O 34 T W) d v 00 v r. R C yd' O� 00 O v1 O M O E00 y N 00 .. O W— G N W O c :? O� ' bU0 �y M 0 0 ai N vi G N U O 00 OTj v U PQ U _ p ¢ y oo 3 � .wy W kn ao o iv `� GO e cd0 b N o .N o m E a g 3 O „ o u^oo o .o N p U d d 000 0Uq > �~ O m > 00 00 O O �� p [� O u "' CIS O Y > C00 .0� A O g �� U C4 �� 00 � $oo pa ° �rx oCL �� V O (x O L as b C .d yy DD y T G O G N ON coo O R v'C v v b ° y to ate' O 0 a nCn,° od• o cn w •fl 'O Vi •C O � c+1. .`'J U PG p G ,� y "" r�-4+ V N O° 3 O O y 0 G G civ ao a� a �x oax d a 0 w �x ¢x HPG HOG aC4 u 9 aaCt w rix d G wo op Q by v7 g' G G C �00 14 > > o c A d L u U y 0 w u U U u N v v v p O � v U U cid � civ c3a c3a ON O O Q Q Q H a H i A i A i A 4 O W O c V) c V) N b o U 0 U o b4C, 00 kn N a `.3 CIOp It Y N N w bq 'mo bD N phn w i N N N y N U y N d O N N4� U U G U � N coCIS Nam+ CIS �" d�+ UC G�' N UC G N Cd c� P. F G F Fi �"' F pip 8 q oo cd �--� q C .� dA c'� A G A A A A y N aAG ° oA4' C! p cn `� Qui CG C� CG CL 3 CL .� p o� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 0 0 0.. 0 0 o 0 W) d v 00 v r. R C yd' O� 00 O v1 O M O E00 y N 00 .. O W— G N W O 35 :? O� bU0 �y M 0 ai N vi G OTj v U PQ U _ p ¢ y oo N .wy W kn ao o iv `� GO e cd0 b N o .N o m E a g 3 O „ o u^oo o .o N p U d d 000 0Uq > �~ O m > 00 00 O O �� p [� O u "' CIS O ocd � C00 .0� A O g �� U C4 �� 00 � $oo pa ° �rx oCL �� V O (x O G b CG No .d yy ar p G '� (x x O G N ON coo O aC130i<t cx1dD gooo� ate' �� o nCn,° od• o � �c. f3. �c C's u 3 .-+ wM••... c+1. .`'J U •x Oma••.. ,� y "" r�-4+ V N �N-+ x Ox a �x oax w zx �x ¢x HPG HOG aC4 u 9 aaCt w rix d 14 > > � d L u U y 0 w u U U u N v v v `� � v U U cid � civ c3a c3a c3a O O Q Q Q H a H i A i A i A 4 c c V) c V) c cn o U 0 U 35 T 0 0 N Y O c w H 0 w O d v E cr i 4) 4 E m Z E �o m a C C O v 0 0 y ca DA V) W) N � 30� Cd E C °? Cl O Oa O o O r E M o Vn >, O H � w w Q Dao x A cox E� ;t., C4 C4 o v Y p x 00 c% ami baa 0 C4 O4 L� 3 U C N «+ „ O E O C1 C',00 w Oq OC C � C � � O �uCOi Cj Nw �y cd U "O C ^ c0 c0 O O O N o� 00 i b~ C C u � 'b .0 t, C N > C O. O E A Na '0 N 0 9 9 0 O Ax �� 3 [ 00 c G R:r�"r,, O V n „ aU v o a O Aye o�m0 A oto C >O, 0 ge aE °oO" u, U Q pm adai W C A A >,tn r` 00g E u W 36 C a t:O 'w rn.0 c0 C o- o „+yekj; E O O E y .O E N N OEq 'C ."'Cr, W 00 b o bn� W ate' o, 0 0 9 wwA< w z•= In _ 00 vl N M. 00 O N a ci N n N OO, Q y oto N rn N ON N O°~, N rn N CN c0 8 °. rn ..b y . H H H 00 00 00 00 00 00 htn > O ba p a"i baa E E E E, E � ti O Cn E E O ,]C w N w w w aCi `,J C aci C aCi C aOi C aci C aGi C �cd E O 'b C a C C C ' 'C7 'O c00 c00 c�0 c�0 c00 °3 yC 0 p E E u E 0 E 0� E D as u A A A A A A cn 3 3'n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O� En AW W W m z1 m GOS r- p O --� to O 00 M kn 00 N N M C C O v 0 0 y ca DA V) W) N � 30� Cd E C °? Cl O Oa O o O r E M o Vn >, O W O , w w Q Dao x A cox E� ;t., C4 C4 o v Y p x 00 c% C C v 0 0 y O U y W) C C v v o bo a`�i a boo �' A" bg -i b ACo �g 30� YO b > .E " 00 CV y " Vn in O ' v , w w Q Dao x A cox a c.04 C4 C4 mW. R C4 O4 L� p; O G= o E p C � C � � ti y A cd U A ^ c0 c0 O O O N .b O CO y b~ C C .0 .D .0 t, C N > C O. O E A Na '0 N 0 9 9 0 O Ax 0 o bo c 00 c G R:r�"r,, O V n „ aU v o a O ow " ba ° 00 A o C C v v o bo a`�i a boo �' A" bg -i b ACo �g 30� .E " !k O O w w w Q Dao x A cox a c.04 C4 C4 mW. R p q{{ ^ U U >O, 0 u, U Q U Q A A A 36 „+yekj; 44°30' 44°00' 43°30 123°00' I Mt Jefferson n [""k`• ;C Sinrtuslu. nn - . rN i ^J W Lr,k, Hilt, d 2 oile Ch lmo g Mf•trp� C'urrr/Jp r am r C Q Cr60 '`� of 404'anyur' ° ("rk- l.y Fio ered" 9ls, 257 Jack ` Cr.aka• -'nup 26 I in'� 3 [.ree Ircnrnm ,i, i,' p/gvsrack q •R;� :c U2rarr�nir V ! "•°mac e, , —_. y� Black Sanham lurrlr *Butte i %.Stmlival C1 Trail %, ,M Id/ crosing Pass L.,ke1* 6.117 yMtvcr "i- `y; �a�a `iridb� •- ;r'�s Inu.,rolfi. Y''' Washington Il �. 'S nke 6, �'-�C-- -"1°'M' Sisters i�. 'k"Wiondit \ r •, Iver McKenzie i t•linc '�, 26 Pass Falls ! r-- ,��y�— North vlNpn'r Y ,1 � Y1 44 J " Sister ,XxNw - .�; �„- �, �%°'�a • n� iddle Sister . Sout Broken �' .0 t1p ,rks L.,k.•'i• r `fF l,Y f48 (,i 'y --t 61ral Ore-4ort-P q Ttlntalo Lf�ake vnhm, • JLs P C„ Lark, C-. Stuvi er M;Ilican Q Crdrnt U y LaA.•C,dn,m. y/C 20 C'1' II.•i'i'tPl• , Newberry. Volcano a T L Lnk.• Cr � N4•,_ , ,e` G Maiden T Irickiup.g'3 to ppelaka EXPLANATION 58 Peak Rcscnvn,- Phw Willamette nr„"; r Estimated ground -water Not estimated P t4kInflow (gain) — In cubic r ��\`�'`• Q feet per second per mile ' Point between or above l4allillilig100-150 which gains and losses � zµ `� 50.100 were estimated 1 8 lrz [.ak,-. t1� 10-50 7t` ;achrist 31 f 5.10 -6.1 Total gain or loss for shaded �, •;`6,6 0-5 stream reaches or j` • ,. ^' networks — In cubic feet ��t1✓ Estimated stream leakage per second (loss) — In cubic feet ,,)+q �r%`� , / per second per mile 31,5 �- �_�area Y 0-1 Study rae w. A 1-5 r cul 5-6 97 5 10 MILES 0 _ 5 10 KILOMETERS Chemult Figure 12. Estimated gain and loss flux rates and net gains and losses for selected stream reaches in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. 37 Sinkholes apparently have been less of a problem since the early 1960s (Bellinger, 1994). The average rate of seepage from Wickiup Reservoir is unknown, but it is probably not more than a few tens of cubic feet per second. Seepage runs indicate some losses along the Little Deschutes River as it flows through the La Pine subbasin (table 5). Most of the measured losses are small, 1 to 3 ft3/s, and are within the measurement error of the 30 to 60 ft3/s streamflow rates. Measured losses between Gilchrist and Crescent Creek, ranging from 11 to 14.4 ft3/s, are sufficiently large with respect to measurement error to be considered meaningful. The Little Deschutes River crosses lava flows of Crescent Butte Volcano along this reach and it is likely that water is being lost into permeable lava. Much of this water likely returns to the river in gaining reaches not far downstream. A seepage run on Crescent Creek, a tributary to the Little Deschutes River, indicated a 1.5 ft3/s loss in the lower 18 miles. This loss is small compared to the flow, approximately 33 ft3/s, and is within the measurement error. Paulina Creek, a tributary to the Little Deschutes River that flows down the west flank of Newberry Volcano, had measured net losses of approximately 2 to 6 ft3/s between river mile 13, at its source at the outlet of Paulina Lake, and river mile 5.2, where it 250 0 g200 In > >o 00150 Nw ♦ ~♦ LL 100 ♦ ♦♦ �'♦ a w LL ♦� 50ca ♦ ♦ LU ♦♦:♦�♦ � 0 O J 1 flows onto the floor of the La Pine subbasin (Morgan and others, 1997). This loss accounted for roughly 20 to 40 percent of the flow of Paulina Creek at the times the seepage runs were made. Seepage runs indicate that, with the exception of the reservoirs discussed previously, the Deschutes River has no significant losing reaches upstream of its confluence with the Little Deschutes River. Downstream from the confluence, gaging -station data indicate significant losses occur along the reach extending from the community of Sunriver down- stream to Bend. Comparison of flow measured at a gage operated from 1945 to 1953 at the Camp Abbott Bridge with the flow at the Benham Falls gage about 10 miles downstream indicates that this reach of the river lost an average of about 24 ft3/s during that period (Oregon Water Resources Department, 1965). The loss, as calculated using monthly mean flow, is variable and weakly correlated with flow (correlation coefficient = 0.40). The Deschutes River loses an average 83 ft3/s between Benham Falls and the gage site below Lava Island about 7.5 miles downstream, based on the period of record from 1945 to 1965. The loss in flow along this reach ranged from —10 ft3/s (a slight gain) to 236 ft3/s and is fairly well correlated with flow (correlation coefficient = 0.74) (fig. 13). ._._..I. .._...... .__._I.... ... _..... _........ 1. ._- ___ .. _I ... 1 .... .._.. . I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 MONTHLY MEAN FLOW AT BENHAM FALLS, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND Figure 13. Relation between monthly mean losses along the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Lava Island and flow at Benham Falls. 38 The wide range of these values is likely due to mea- surement error of the stream gages and of the gage on a diversion used in the loss calculation. The rate of leakage in this reach far exceeds that of any other losing stream reach in the upper Deschutes Basin. The leakage in this area is likely into very young, highly permeable lava flows from Lava Butte that diverted the river and now form much of the east bank and some of the falls along this reach. Stream losses between Camp Abbott Bridge and Lava Island far exceed losses anywhere else in the upper Deschutes Basin and are an important source of recharge. USGS and OWRD stream -gage data from 1945 to 1965 indicate that average stream losses between the gage below Lava Island and the gage below Bend are small, about 4.0 ft3/s. The difference in flow along this reach ranged from a 68 ft3/s gain to a 72 ft3/s loss, and shows no correlation with flow. The wide range in values is likely due to measurement error of the stream gages and of the gages on five diversions used in the calculations. Calculated losses along the two reaches of the Deschutes River described above, which total 87 ft3/s, are based on a period of record from 1945 to 1965. Losses along the two separate reaches after 1965 cannot be calculated because the gage below Lava Island ceased operation. Losses can be calculated, however, for the entire reach from Benham Falls to Bend for a much longer period. The average loss between Benham Falls and Bend, based on monthly mean flows from 1945 to 1995, is 89 ft3/s. This agrees favorably with the sum of losses calculated for the subreaches for the shorter period of record. Information on stream losses along the Deschutes River from Bend downstream to Lower Bridge is from OWRD seepage runs (Kyle Gorman, OWRD, written commun., 1995) (table 5); gage data are insufficient for evaluating losses along this reach. Seepage runs indicate that there are two areas between Bend and Lower Bridge where the Deschutes may lose a small amount of water (table 5). These areas are between river miles 154.5 and 146.8, near Awbrey Falls, and between river miles 145.3 and 143.2, near Cline Falls. Losses in both these areas are about 10 ft3/s, and were measured when flows ranged from 30 to 50 ft3/s. Not far downstream from both of these losing reaches, the river gains comparable amounts of water, implying that water lost from the river along this section apparently returns to the surface not far downstream. These seepage runs were done during 39 periods of very low streamflow and may not reflect losses at higher flow rates. However, gage data from upstream between Lava Island and Bend suggest that losses may not be flow dependent along this reach. There are no significant losses from the Deschutes River downstream of Lower Bridge. Stream losses also were measured along Indian Ford Creek (table 5). A series of seepage measure- ments taken by OWRD during the winter months of 1992 indicate that Indian Ford Creek lost its entire flow (approximately 6 ft3/s) between the Black Butte Ranch springs, where it originates, and its confluence with Squaw Creek. No other streams measured in the upper Des- chutes Basin showed significant losses. The lower sections of Tumalo and Squaw Creeks showed only minor losses of less than I ft3/s when measured during low flow conditions. Possible losses during higher flow conditions are not known. Drainage wells Storm runoff in urban areas of the upper Des- chutes Basin is often disposed of through drainage wells. Drainage wells in this report include both drilled disposal wells and larger diameter, but shallower, drywells, which are usually dug. Runoff disposed of in drainage wells is routed directly to permeable rock beneath the land surface, bypassing the soil zone from which a certain amount of the water would normally be returned to the atmosphere through evaporation or transpiration by plants. Once routed to permeable rock beneath the soil, the runoff percolates downward to recharge the ground -water system. Although runoff disposed of through drainage wells represents a source of ground -water recharge, the volume of water is very small relative to other sources of recharge in urban areas, such as canal leak- age, and minuscule compared to the entire ground- water flow budget. To illustrate this, estimates of the amount of ground -water recharge through drainage wells in Bend and Redmond are presented in this section. Engineering maps provided by the city of Bend in 1994 show approximately 1,175 drainage wells used for street drains in the city. This number does not include drainage wells on private property, but their distribution is taken to represent the area over which runoff is handled in this manner. There are 163 quarter -quarter sections (40 -acre tracts) with at least I and as many as 30 drainage wells. The quarter - quarter sections with at least one drainage well compose a total area of just over 10 mit. To estimate the amount of ground -water recharge from drainage wells, it is necessary to estimate the fraction of the total precipitation that is routed to them. Runoff routed to drainage wells is that which falls on impervious surfaces and cannot infiltrate the soil naturally. Roofs, driveways, parking lots, and streets are examples of impervious surfaces. The amount of impervious surface relative to the total land area varies with land -use type. Commercial areas, with large roofed structures and expansive parking lots, can be 85 percent impervious (Snyder and others, 1994). Impervious surfaces in residential areas, in contrast, range from 20 percent of the land area, for large lots where yards are big relative to structures and drive- ways, to 65 percent for small lots (Soil Conservation Service, 1975). A value of 35 percent impervious surface was used for calculations for Bend, based on mapped impervious areas for dominantly residential areas in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington (Laenen, 1980, table 1). Not all of the precipitation that falls on imper- vious surfaces runs off to drainage wells. A certain amount is evaporated from wetted surfaces and undrained areas such as puddles, and from detention structures. This is known as detention -storage loss. In estimating recharge from drainage wells in the Portland Basin, Snyder and others (1994), using the work of Laenen (1980), estimated that about 25 percent of the precipitation was evaporated in this manner, leaving about 75 percent to run off to drain- age wells. Because this value was derived using con- ditions in western Oregon, it may be low for the Bend area, where conditions are much dryer. A detention - storage loss of 25 percent is used herein with the assumption that if it is too conservative, recharge from drainage wells may be slightly overestimated. Average recharge from drainage wells in Bend was estimated assuming that runoff from all imper- vious surfaces in any quarter -quarter section (40 -acre tract) with at least one drainage well was disposed of through drainage wells. There are 163 quarter -quarter sections meeting this criteria, with an aggregate area of 10.19 mit. Average precipitation in Bend is 11.70 in./yr (period of record 1961 to 1990) (Oregon Climate Service, 1999). Using these figures and assuming that 35 percent of the area is impervious surface and that 25 percent of the precipitation is lost through evaporation, the runoff routed to dry wells is approximately 73 million ft3/yr, or about 2.3 ft3/s. This is not a significant source of recharge when com- pared to canal and stream leakage, which can exceed 20 ft3/s/mi near Bend. Similar calculations were done for Redmond using maps provided by the city and aerial photo- graphs taken in 1995. A public -facilities map indicates there are about 30 quarter -quarter sections within Redmond in which there is at least one drainage well, with an aggregate area of 1.88 mit. Analysis of 1995 aerial photographs suggests that there may be new res- idential areas not included in this total, but these repre- sent only a small increase in the total area and are not included in the following calculation. Using the same values as in the analysis for Bend to represent the percentage of impervious area and evaporative losses and an average annual precipitation of 7.83 inches (1961-90), total runoff to drainage wells in Redmond is estimated to be approximately 9 million ft3/yr, or about 0.28 ft3/s. As with Bend, this is not a significant source of recharge. Similar calculations were not carried out for other urban areas in the upper Deschutes Basin. Examples from Bend and Redmond, the most urban- ized areas, illustrate that runoff to drainage wells is not an important volumetric component of ground -water recharge. Although runoff to drainage wells is not volu- metrically substantial, it may be significant in terms of water quality. Urban runoff can contain contaminants such as household pesticides and fertilizers, and auto- motive petroleum products. Runoff routed directly to drainage wells has a direct pathway to the ground- water system, bypassing the soil zone, where natural processes such as filtration, adsorption, and biodeg- radation may serve to reduce levels of some contami- nants. Interbasin Flow The final source of recharge to the upper Deschutes Basin regional ground -water system is subsurface flow from adjoining basins. In general, the lateral boundaries of the upper Deschutes Basin study area are considered to be no -flow boundaries. There are, however, two areas where inflow from adjacent areas is probable: along the Cascade Range crest in the Metolius River drainage and in the southeastern part of the study area northeast of Newberry Volcano. 40 The western boundary of the study area coin- cides with the topographic crest of the Cascade Range. It is generally considered a no -flow boundary because the ground -water divide is assumed to follow the distri- bution of precipitation, which generally follows the topography. The isohyetal map of Taylor (1993) shows that in the area of the Metolius River subbasin, the region of highest precipitation occurs west of the topo- graphic crest of the Cascade Range, suggesting that the ground -water divide is also to the west of the topo- graphic divide and that there is likely ground -water flow eastward across the topographic divide. This interbasin flow is also indicated by the hydrologic bud- get of the Metolius River subbasin. Average ground- water discharge to the Metolius River in the study area above the gage near Grandview is approximately 1,300 ft3/s. The mean annual recharge from precipita- tion in the Metolius River subbasin above this point in the study area is estimated to be only about 500 ft3/s. The difference, 800 ft3/s, almost certainly comes from subsurface flow from an adjacent basin. The most plausible source for this additional water is the upper Santiam and North Santiam River Basins to the west. South of Bear Creek Butte, through Millican and the China Hat area, the eastern study -area boundary does not coincide with either a topographic divide or a geologic contact. The region east of this area was not included in the study area because of the lack of subsurface hydrologic information, very low recharge, and distance from the areas of primary concern. Hydraulic -head data, however, indicate there is some flow across this boundary into the study area from the southeast. This flux was estimated using a variety of methods. The part of the Deschutes Basin east of this boundary is very dry (10 to 15 in./yr precipitation) and has a poorly developed drainage system with no perennial streams. The divide between this part of the Deschutes Basin and the Fort Rock and Christmas Lake Basins to the south is poorly defined and interbasin flow is likely. Miller (1986) states that flow to the Deschutes Basin from the Fort Rock Basin "probably exceeds 10,000 acre-ft/yr," which equals about 14 ft3/s. Estimates based on the Darcy equation, using measured head gradients and estimated hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness, suggest that the flux into the study area may be as high as 100 ft3/s. Additional estimates were derived using a water - budget approach. 'rhe probable area contributing to the boundary flux was defined using hydraulic -head maps 41 from the Deschutes Basin and the Fort Rock Basin (Miller, 1986). Flux rates were calculated using a range of recharge values from Newcomb (1953), Miller (1986), and McFarland and Ryals (1991). Assuming a contributing area of 648 mit and recharge estimates ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 in./yr, the boundary flux could range from 25 to 145 ft3/s. If recharge is assumed to be 1.0 in./yr in the contributing area for this boundary flux, the estimated flux rate is about 50 ft3/s. GROUND -WATER DISCHARGE Ground water discharges from aquifers to streams, to wells, and through evapotranspiration. Discharge to streams is the principal avenue by which water leaves the ground -water system. Discharge can occur to discrete springs or as diffuse seepage through streambeds. Pumping by wells is another avenue by which ground water leaves the ground -water system. In the Deschutes Basin, discharge to wells represents a small fraction of the total ground -water discharge. Evapotranspiration by plants is the third mechanism considered in this report. Most plant water require- ments are met by water percolating downward through the soil before it enters the ground -water system. In some areas where the water table is sufficiently shal- low to be within the rooting depth of plants, transpira- tion can occur directly from the ground -water system. This process represents a very small fraction of the total ground -water discharge in the basin. Each of these mechanisms is discussed in more detail in the following sections. Ground -Water Discharge to Streams Discharge to streams is the main avenue by which water leaves the ground -water system and is one of the major components of the hydrologic budget. Ground water discharges to streams in areas where the stream elevation is lower than the elevation of the water table in adjacent aquifers. Considerable amounts of ground water can discharge to the streams in this way from regional aquifers with large recharge areas. Streams in which the flow increases due to ground- water discharge are termed gaining streams. The amount of ground water discharging to streams or leaking from streams varies geographically and with time. Understanding the rates and distribution of ground -water discharge to streams is critical to under- standing the ground -water hydrology of an area. The amount and location of ground -water discharge can be determined by measuring streamflow at points along a stream and accounting for tributary inflow and diver- sions between the points as well as temporal changes in flow. In general, increases in flow from point to point downstream that are not due to tributary inflow are caused by ground water discharging to the stream. Discharge can occur either at discrete locations such as springs or as diffused seepage through the stream - bed. Stream -gage data can be particularly useful for estimating ground -water discharge. Gages on spring - fed streams, such as Fall River, measure ground -water discharge directly. Data from pairs of gages operated concurrently along a stream can be compared to estimate ground -water inflow between the gages as long as tributary inflow and diversions can be accounted for. Late summer and early fall flows in some streams are essentially entirely ground -water discharge (base flow). Therefore, annual low flows at certain stream gages can provide reasonable estimates of ground -water discharge. Estimates of ground -water discharge to major streams in the upper Deschutes Basin are provided in table 7. These estimates are based on seepage runs and stream -gage data as well as other miscellaneous 250 U W tY Cl) 200 J W a O OCc w N J � 150 _Wa 2�w Q W W QHU 100 yam J W U = X Z Z W 50 O 2 Z Q W 2 n measurements. Unless otherwise noted, the values in table 7 represent approximate long-term average conditions. Geographic Distribution of Ground -Water Discharge to Streams There are three main settings in the upper Des- chutes Basin where substantial amounts of ground- water discharge to streams: the southern part of the basin in and near the margin of the Cascade Range, the Metolius Basin adjacent to the Cascade Range, and the area surrounding the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers extending downstream to about Pelton Dam (fig. 12). This latter area is referred to as the "confluence area" in this report. Ground water constitutes a large proportion of the flow in many streams in and along the margin of the Cascade Range in the southern part of the basin (table 7). Ground water constitutes virtually the entire flow of some of these streams, such as Fall River. Such streams are recognized by the presence of source springs, lack of tributary streams, and flows that are very constant relative to other streams. Hydrographs of mean monthly flows (fig. 14) illustrate the differ- ences between streams in which ground water is a the dominant source and those in which surface run- off is the dominant source. Fall, Cultus, and Quinn Rivers, and Browns Creek all show relatively little variation in flow throughout the year indicating that ----- Big Marsh Creek ---- Browns Creek Cultus Creek ---- Cultus River ------ Deer Creek Deschutes River below Snow Creek — — - Fall River ........ Quinn River — Squaw Creek // Metolius River _ ` - — - — - — - I / / i �J ice-- + fir.--•. r_� ________________ i --��----------------------------- - ---------- 1,. 5;::;; _ _ _ _ — — OCT NOV DEC JAN FEES MAh yarn .VCM 1 --- MONTH Figure 14. Mean monthly flows of selected nonregulated streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. 42 2.500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 CE W it U J W Z 2Z O Ccw ON Oa �W LL �U Nm 7 JU F=- Z Z O 2 Z W W 2 ..�.L�+Y. w `LL... __ .�.I.t�tWY.t ..iui ..-_._.. .� ::.aJp,.:.Jlm. r •..Y� • 'lit .. _. � _ — they are not greatly affected by surface runoff and that ground water provides most of their flow. In contrast, Squaw, Big Marsh, Cultus, and Deer Creeks, and the Deschutes River (measured at the gage below Snow Creek just above Crane Prairie Reservoir) all show substantial increases in flow during spring due to run- off, indicating that their flow is dominated, or at least affected, by surface runoff. Some of these runoff -dominated streams, such as the Deschutes River, have substantial flow even during the driest months of the year, indicating that ground -water discharge constitutes an important part of the flow. Others, such as Cultus and Deer Creeks, nearly cease to flow in the driest months of the year, indicating that ground -water discharge is only a minor part of their total flow. Temporal variations in ground- water discharge are discussed in more detail in a later section of the report. The Metolius River drainage is the second region of significant ground -water discharge in and along the margin of the Cascade Range (fig. 12, table 7). The Metolius River drainage comprises numerous streams emanating from the Cascade Range, many of which are spring fed and others that are probably runoff dominated. The only long-term stream gage on the Metolius River is low in the drainage just above Lake 3,500 0 z 3,000 w w a w 2,500 U1 LL U m Z 2,000 O J LLg Q 1,500 W U) N z 1,000 M J z O 500 2 0 i"L_ 1920 Monthly mean flow October mean flow Billy Chinook (this gage is officially referred to as being near Grandview, an abandoned town site). Although this gage represents a large drainage area that encompasses both spring -fed and runoff - dominated streams, it warrants analysis because of the large volume of ground water that discharges in the Metolius River drainage. Two tributary streams, Jefferson Creek and Whitewater River, carry glacial runoff from Mt. Jefferson and have late -season flows not entirely attributable to ground -water discharge. A hydrograph of the monthly mean flow of the Metolius River near Grandview from 1922 to 1997 (fig. 15) clearly shows transient runoff events caused by spring snowmelt and large storms. During the late summer, however, when surface runoff is minimal, the flow of the Metolius is largely ground -water discharge. These late -summer flows are relatively large, reflect- ing the large amount of ground -water discharge. The lowest mean monthly flow occurs during October. The mean October flow of the Metolius River near Grandview for the period 1912-87 was 1,350 ft3/s (Moffatt and others, 1990). This amount includes the flow of Jefferson Creek and Whitewater River, which may include late -season glacial melt, but the contribu- tion from these streams is relatively small. The mean October flow of Jefferson Creek was 77 ft3/s during 1930 1940 1950 1960 19/u iaou iaau YEAR Figure 15. Monthly mean flow of the Metolius River near Grandview. (The line connecting the October mean flows approx- imates ground -water discharge.) 43 the period 1984-98 and that of Whitewater River was 53 ft3/s during the period 1983-98. Depending on the amount of the mean October flow of these streams that is glacial in origin, the mean October flow of the Metolius River near Grandview that is derived from ground -water discharge is between 1,220 and 1,350 ft3/s. A variety of regional geologic factors controls the location of ground -water discharge to streams and springs in and along the margins of the Cascade Range. Many large spring areas and gaining stream reaches, such as Fall and Spring Rivers, coincide with the boundary of the La Pine and Shukash structural basins. The low -permeability basin -filling sediments likely divert ground water toward the surface by acting as an impediment to subsurface flow. Geologic structure can also influence ground- water discharge in and along the margins of the Cascade Range. The tremendous amount of ground water discharging to the upper Metolius River and its tributaries is undoubtedly due in large part to the major fault system along the base of Green Ridge (fig. 4). Green Ridge is a 20 -mile long escarpment that marks the eastern margin of a north -south trending graben I into which the Cascade Range in that area has sub- sided (Allen, 1966; Priest, 1990). Vertical movement along this fault system is estimated to be over 3,000 ft (Conrey, 1985). The fault system may influence ground -water discharge in two ways. First, elevation of the valley on the downthrown side of the fault sys- tem is anomalously low when compared to surround- ing terrane a similar distance from the Cascade Range. Low -elevation areas commonly are regions of ground- water discharge. Second, the fault itself likely impedes eastward movement of ground water flowing from the Cascade Range, forcing ground water to discharge to the river. The impediment to eastward ground -water movement could be due to low -permeability crushed or sheared rock along the fault planes or the juxta- position of permeable strata on the west side of the fault system against low -permeability strata on the east. Analysis of carbon isotope data (James and others, 1999) suggests that the water discharged from the Metolius River springs includes a component of deep regional ground water, implying that there is vertical permeability locally along the escarpment. Local geology also affects the location of ground -water discharge. Many springs occur along the edges or ends of Quaternary lava flows. Ground water emerges at these locations because saturated permeable zones in or at the base of the lava flows intersect land surface. Some springs, such as those at the upper end of Davis Creek, emerge in buried stream channels at the ends of intracanyon lava flows. The total average amount of ground water discharging to streams in and along the margin of the Cascade Range in the study area is estimated to be approximately 2,600 ft3/s. This includes discharge to streams in the southern part of the study area, in the Tumalo and Squaw Creek drainages, and in the Metolius River drainage (table 7). Approximately one- half of this amount discharges in the Metolius River drainage. The third major setting in which ground water discharges to streams is the region around the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers and extending downstream to the vicinity of Pelton Dam. Russell (1905, p. 88) provides an early description of ground -water inflow in this region: Crooked River at Trail Crossing, at the time of my visit in early August [1903], had shrunk to a brook of tepid, muddy, and unwholesome water, across which one could step dry -shod from stone to stone. Its volume, by estimate, was not more than 2 cubic feet per second.... On descending the canyon about 12 miles lower down its course I was surprised to find a swift -flowing, clear stream of cool, delicious water, by estimate 100 feet wide and 3 feet deep, with a volume of not less than 300 cubic feet per second. This remarkable renewal or resuscitation of a stream in an arid land is due to the inflow of Opal and other similar springs. Stearns (193 1) also recognized the large amount of ground water discharging to streams in the area while investigating the geology and hydrology of the middle Deschutes Basin for potential dam sites. Stearns used stream -gage data to conservatively estimate ground -water inflow to the lower Crooked River between Trail Crossing and the gaging station near Culver (now under Lake Billy Chinook) to be 950 ft3/s. He also used gage data to estimated ground- water inflow to the Deschutes River between Bend and Madras at about 600 ft3/s. These numbers are generally consistent with modern estimates when the effects of irrigation development and of Round Butte Dam are considered. Ground -water discharge to the lower Crooked River and middle Deschutes River was estimated from OWRD seepage runs (fig. 12, table 5). Ground- water discharge to the lower Crooked River between Terrebonne and the gage below Opal Springs was ap- proximately 1,100 ft3/s in June 1994 (fig. 16, table 5). 44 :�'.a,ni.°"n� �.� - �Y ys ..: �,..1 .... _.. .. _ .moi_ y_,..,.. - ...u... •.uu•"- ._ _�:.�.-Y-. .. „� 1,200 0 z (01,000 LU U) w a 800 H w W LL m 600 D U Z 400 0 U. 200 h 0 Opal Springs Near Trail Osborne Terribonne Crossing Canyon 30 25 20 15 10 RIVER MILE Figure 16. Gain in flow of the lower Crooked River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 27 and 7, July 1994. Most of this inflow entered the Crooked River below Osborne Canyon, about 7 miles upstream from the gaging station below Opal Springs. The Deschutes River gained approximately 400 ft3/s along the 10 -mile reach above the gaging station near Culver, just above Lake Billy Chinook, during seepage runs in May 1992 and May 1994 (fig. 17, table 5). About 300 ft3/s of this gain was from ground -water discharge directly to the Deschutes River, and the remaining 100 ft3/s was mostly from ground -water 600 0 500 U w U W CL 400 w w LL U 300 U z O 200 LL Q� Ll1 (Y 100 0 discharge to lower Squaw Creek near its confluence with the Deschutes River. A seepage run made along Squaw Creek in April 1994, combined with data from the seepage run along the Deschutes River a month later, showed Squaw Creek gaining approximately 94 ft3/s from springflow in the lower 1.7 miles from Alder Springs to the confluence (table 7). The ground -water discharge estimates from seepage runs on the lower Crooked River, Deschutes River, and Squaw Creek are probably conservative estimates of long-term mean annual ground -water discharge. The seepage runs were conducted after a period of several relatively dry years. The monthly mean streamflows for the months during which the seepage runs were conducted were low compared to the long-term mean monthly flows (Hubbard and others, 1993, 1995). Temporal variations in ground- water discharge are discussed in a later section. Ground -water inflow to Lake Billy Chinook, estimated from stream -gaging -station data, is roughly 420 ft3/s (the middle of the range in table 7). From Round Butte Dam downstream to Dry Creek at river mile 91.8 (about 2.5 miles below Shitike Creek), the Deschutes River gains about 400 ft3/s from ground- water inflow (table 7). There is no significant ground- water inflow directly to the Deschutes River down- stream from this point. The total amount of ground water discharging to the Deschutes and Crooked 165 155 145 135 RIVER MILE `Ny Figure 17. Gain in flow of the Deschutes River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 165 and 120, May 1992 and May 1994. (Some of the gain is due to ground -water discharge along the lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek.) 45 0 5/11/92 Streamflow iu --a- 5/16/94 Streamflow U m d c d cc d U 3 Q N c Q N N a lL L Co 6 LL N C LL m fp O U J rn ¢ M 0 -- - - -fa-' '- 165 155 145 135 RIVER MILE `Ny Figure 17. Gain in flow of the Deschutes River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 165 and 120, May 1992 and May 1994. (Some of the gain is due to ground -water discharge along the lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek.) 45 Rivers in the area extending from about 10 miles above Lake Billy Chinook to Dry Creek is approxi- mately 2,300 ft3/s. This is probably a conservative estimate for the reasons previously discussed. The ground -water discharge estimate in the confluence area (2,300 ft3/s) cannot be simply added to the discharge estimate for streams emanating from the Cascade Range (2,600 ft3/s) to estimate average net ground -water discharge to streams in the basin. The resulting value exceeds the total estimated ground -water recharge for the entire upper Deschutes Basin. This is because the streams to which ground water discharges in the upper basin lose some of that water (as much as 600 ft3/s) back to the ground- water system through stream and canal leakage. This water discharges once again in the confluence area. Therefore, a fraction of the ground water discharged in the confluence area has entered and been discharged from the ground -water system twice. Ground -water discharge in the confluence area is controlled primarily by geology. Sceva (1960), in a report prepared for the Oregon Water Resources Board, was the first to describe the influence of the geology on regional ground -water flow and discharge. His basic conceptual model was largely corroborated by subsequent data collection and analysis. In a later report he states: "A barrier of rocks having a low permeability transects the Deschutes River Basin near Madras. This barrier forces all of the ground water to SW_ Deschutes River 0 o elevation profile y %) c F - w LU z z 0 LU SEA I LEVEL 220 be discharged into the river system... (Sceva, 1968, p• 5).' The Deschutes Basin is transected by a broad ridge composed of the John Day Formation, a rock unit of very low permeability that extends, with varying degrees of exposure, from the Gray Butte area north to the Mutton Mountains (outside and to the northwest of the study area) and east into the John Day Basin (fig. 4). This broad ridge is part of a regional uplift extending from central to northeastern Oregon known as the Blue Mountain anticline (Orr and others, 1992). The John Day Formation in this area consists of tuffaceous claystone, air -fall and ash -flow tuffs, and lava flows (Robinson and others, 1984). The ridge of the John Day Formation represents an ancient upland that formed the northern and eastern boundary of the basin into which the permeable Deschutes Forma- tion was deposited. North of Madras, the Deschutes Formation, through which most regional ground water in the upper basin moves, becomes increasingly thin and eventually ends. Because the John Day Formation has such low permeability, ground water cannot move farther north in the subsurface and is forced to discharge to the Crooked and Deschutes Rivers, which have fully incised the Deschutes Formation (fig. 18). Analysis of stream -gaging data shows that there is no significant ground -water discharge to the Deschutes River downstream from the area where the John Day Formation forms the walls of the river canyon. Ovatetab- ate'. v Und. r tab _ water �`- Permeable rock N perrneabillt�f i6 61k x't , t 160 140 RIVER MILE NOT TO SCALE m a m Area of o ground -water discharge to the Deschutes River O e 0 CL 120 NE 5000 4000 r - w w LL 3000 z z 0 a 2000 J LU 1000 a+ 1 L SEA 100 80 LEVEL Figure 18. Diagrammatic section showing the effect of geology on ground -water discharge along the Deschutes River upstream of Pelton Dam. 46 �.__... .• ..:.- ,..�su,ao:.., .._ . _. _...,...;,.,..a.,.,a ., cam. ..,,...:.�.., uL....., .,k, . , ...— - - Temporal Variations in Ground -Water Discharge to Streams Ground -water discharge to streams not only varies from place to place, but varies with time as well. The rate of ground -water discharge varies on many time scales, but for this study, annual and decadal time scales are examined. Annual discharge variations are driven by the seasonal variations in precipitation and ground -water recharge. Decadal variations in ground- water discharge in the Deschutes Basin are driven by variations in precipitation and recharge due to climate cycles. Longer-term variations in discharge, occurring over many decades, can be caused by long-term climate trends. Ground -water discharge variations at all of these time scales can be influenced by human activity. Temporal variations in ground -water discharge in the basin are discussed in the following paragraphs. Virtually all the data on temporal variations in ground -water discharge were derived from stream gages, where continuous records of stream discharge were recorded (fig. 11). Data from stream gages are useful for estimating ground -water discharge only in certain circumstances. Regulation of streamflow at upstream dams or other control structures precludes the use of some gages for estimating ground -water discharge. If the gage is at a location where it is known that the streamflow is virtually entirely from ground- water discharge, such as with spring -fed streams like Fall River, then the gage provides a continuous direct measurement of ground -water discharge. In such cases, the gage can provide information on variations in ground -water discharge at many time scales ranging from daily to long term. In other circumstances, such as along the lower Crooked River at Opal Springs, streamflow can only be assumed to represent ground- water discharge during the driest months of the year when surface runoff from upstream is negligible compared to known inflow from springs. In cases such as this, the gage cannot be used to evaluate seasonal variations in ground -water discharge, but can pro- vide information on year-to-year variations. In some circumstances, a set of gages operated concurrently on a stream can be used to estimate ground -water inflow to the stream between the gages as long as there is no unmeasured tributary inflow or diversion along the intervening reach. Stream -gage data suitable for estimating temporal variations in ground -water discharge are available for only a few locations in the upper Deschutes Basin because stream gages are typically located and operated for other reasons. However, the 47 main ground -water discharge settings are represented in the available data. Stream -gage data are available for a number of small spring -fed streams along the margin of the Cascade Range in the southern part of the basin, including Cultus, Quinn, and Fall Rivers, and Browns Creek. The flow in these streams is almost entirely ground -water discharge, as indicated by constant flow throughout the year (fig. 14). The gages on these streams provide an approximate continuous measure of ground -water discharge. The flow in these streams does vary seasonally, and they do exhibit annual peaks in flow. The magnitude of the peak flow is attenuated and the timing of the peak flow is delayed when com- pared with runoff -dominated streams such as Cultus, Deer, and Big Marsh Creeks (fig. 14). The differences between ground -water- and surface -water -dominated streams is apparent in the statistics of their mean monthly flows (table 8). The range in mean monthly flows for surface -water -dominated streams is over 200 percent of their mean annual flow. The months with the highest mean flows for surface -water -domi- nated streams are May and June. The range in mean monthly flows for ground -water -dominated streams, in contrast, is only 11 to 58 percent of their mean annual flows, and the high flow may occur any month from May through September. The peaks in flow seen in ground -water -dominated streams are caused by the same snowmelt events that provide peak discharge to runoff -dominated streams. Because the water must percolate through the soil and trove through the sub- surface before discharging to spring -fed streams, the peaks in flow are attenuated and delayed. The time lag between the annual peak snowmelt and the peak in the flow of these spring -fed streams is proportional to the degree of attenuation of annual flow peak; in other words, the more subdued the peak flow, the longer the time lag (Manga, 1996). A mathe- matical model for ground -water -dominated streams in the Cascade Range developed by Manga (1997) relates the degree of attenuation and the time lag of the peak streamflow to the generalized geometry and hydraulic properties of the aquifers feeding the stream. In Manga's model, the annual recharge pulse caused by snowmelt is essentially diffused along the length of the aquifer causing the attenuation and delay in the peak flow. This suggests that streams fed by aquifers with large areas are likely to have more uniform flow and a longer delay between recharge events and peak flows when compared to streams fed by aquifers with small capture areas. Table 8. Statistical summaries of selected nonregulated streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon [Source: Moffatt and others, 1990; ft3/s, cubic feet per second] Station name Station number Period of record Mean annual flow (ft3/s) Highest mean monthly flow (ft3/s) Month of highest mean monthly flow Lowest mean monthly flow (ft3/s) Month of lowest mean monthly flow Variation as percentage of mean annual flow Deschutes River 14050000 1937-87 151 227 August 99 March 85 below Snow Creek Cultus River 14050500 1923-87 63 75 July 50 February—March 40 above Cultus Creek Cultus Creek 14051000 1924-62 22 73 June 1.2 October 326 above Crane Prairie Reservoir Deer Creek 14052000 1924-87 7.5 28 May 0.2 September 371 above Crane Prairie Reservoir Quinn River 14052500 1938-87 24 33 July 19 November—January 58 near La Pine Browns Creek 14054500 1923-87 38 43 September 34 February—March 24 near La Pine Fall River 14057500 1938-87 150 159 May 142 February 11 near La Pine Big Marsh Creek 14061000 1912-58 72 182 May 21 September 224 at Hoey Ranch Squaw Creek 14075000 1906-87 105 224 June 62 March 154 near Sisters Metolius River 14091500 1912-87 1,500 1,640 June 1,350 October 19 near Grandview The spring -fed streams in the southern Deschutes Basin exhibit decadal flow variations in addition to annual variations. Individual peak periods on Fall River, for example, are roughly 5 to 14 years apart. Decadal variations in annual mean discharge can be substantial. Stream -gage data show that between 1939 and 1991 the annual mean flow of Fall River varied from 81 to 202 ft3/s and the annual mean flow of Cultus River ranged from 36 to 96 ft3/s. These decadal variations in ground -water discharge are driven by climate cycles. Comparing the ground -water discharge variations with precipitation at Crater Lake in. the Cascade Range (both as cumulative departures from normal) shows that periods of high ground -water discharge generally correspond with periods of high precipitation (fig. 19). Stream -gage data also provide information on temporal variations in ground -water discharge in the Metolius River drainage. As mentioned in the preceding section, the only long-term gage on the Metolius River is in the lower part of the drainage near Grandview, which measures discharge from a relatively large area. Because the drainage area represented by this gage includes runoff -dominated streams, the data cannot be used to evaluate seasonal variations in ground -water discharge. Evaluating the late summer and early fall flows, when most streamflow is ground -water discharge, however, can provide information on the long-term variations in ground -water discharge in the basin. Before evaluating base flow to the Metolius River, the effects of tributary streams potentially carrying glacial meltwater during the late summer must be considered. In figure 20, a graph of October mean discharge values for the Metolius River is shown with similar graphs of Jefferson Creek and Whitewater River. Subtracting the flow of Jefferson Creek and Whitewater River shifts the graph of the Metolius River downward, but does not affect the overall shape of the graph or magnitude of variation (fig. 20). This suggests that the variations in October mean flows in the Metolius River are not greatly affected by these glacial streams and probably reflect variations in ground -water discharge. 48 400 z � 0 LL 300 O o CL 0 cr W Lu tt U) FC a. o: J w N ¢ o_ 200 cc 0 w O LL Z U � Co O LL U F- W Z pF- p 3UJ X100 M _jw W ZD W > J H ¢ D Z 0 ¢ U Z -100 L- 1945 — - - — Browns Ceek. ------• Cultus Creek / Cultus River �,\ / \ / _, - • Deer Creek. Fall River Metolius River ...... • Quinn River Precipitation at Crater Lake �1 It it ..r•.•.....+......•..... ..0.V•�. •�.^�� • .... `I 4 of W CC N 175 J 3 2 w M LL F- o 0 Z 00 LL N Z W 2E LU ra a <LL Z m ¢D JU aLL O 1 0Z z & _ LL 0 W H F Z 0 w 0_ w 0 LU H J D 2 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 U YEAR Figure 19. Cumulative departure from normal annual mean flows of selected streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1947-91. 1,800 W 1,600 it 7 z 1,400 U U) 1,200 w �? 0 1,000 o - LU LL w Z LL 800 ¢ U ¢ U 600 W Z O 400 200 Metolius River at Grandview -- Metolius River with Jefferson Creek and Whitewater River subtracted Jefferson Creek f - - - - Whitewater River ♦♦ rr`�rrrrr j ♦ -------------- r. rrrrrrl�' `��•�' i 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 YEAR Figure 20. October mean flows of the Metolius River (near Grandview), Jefferson Creek, and Whitewater River, upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1984-97. 49 oz Z0 U Y w LU rn w¢ U aa.. v0i w rc LL w LL m 3U 9? U. W > ¢ fr W Mw ¢Q W W O O= Variations in long-term discharge of the Metolius River at Grandview exhibit a pattern similar to that seen in other Cascade Range streams. Comparison of the annual mean discharge of the Metolius River with precipitation at Crater Lake (both as cumulative departures from normal) shows that variations in base flow of the Metolius River follow variations in Cascade Range precipitation to a large degree, as is the case with other Cascade streams (fig. 19). Because of the size of the drainage basin, the magnitude of the decadal variation in ground -water discharge to the Metolius River is less than that in the smaller ground -water - dominated streams in the upper basin. For example, the 407 ft3/s variation in October mean discharge of the Metolius River from 1962 to 1997 is about 30 percent of the mean October discharge for the period. The variation in October mean discharge for Fall River, by comparison, is about 74 percent of the mean October discharge flow for the same period. Stream -gage data also allow evaluation of tem- poral variations in ground -water discharge in the area near the confluence of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Data are available for reaches of both the Crooked and Deschutes Rivers above Lake Billy Chinook. In both cases, unmeasured tributary inflow during parts of the year preclude analysis of seasonal variations and allow analysis only of interannual and longer-term variations. Variations in ground -water discharge to the Deschutes River in the confluence area can be evalu- ated by comparing discharge records from stream gages below Bend and near Culver just above Lake Billy Chinook. Seepage runs (table 5), discussed in a preceding section, indicate that most of the ground- water discharge to this reach occurs within 10 miles of Lake Billy Chinook. Two major tributaries, Tumalo and Squaw Creeks, join the Deschutes River between the Bend and Culver gages. Neither of these tributaries have gaging stations near their mouths. During the irrigation season (April to November), most of the flow of these streams is diverted. Tumalo Creek flows only a few cubic feet per second at its confluence with the Deschutes River during this time (table 5). Squaw Creek typically flows about 100 ft3/s at its confluence with the Deschutes River during the irrigation season (table 5), but nearly all of this flow is from springs (including Alder Springs) within 1.7 miles of the mouth. Flow in Squaw Creek above the springs is typically only a few cubic feet per second. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider the net gain in streamflow along the Deschutes River between the gages below Bend and near Culver during the late summer and early fall to be almost entirely due to ground -water discharge along the lower part of that reach, including the lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek. A graph of the difference between August mean flows at the Bend and Culver gages from 1953 to 1997 (fig. 21) shows that August mean ground -water discharge varied from 420 to 522 ft3/s and exhibited a pattern of variation similar to other streams in the basin. The 102 ft3/s variation in August mean ground- water discharge to this reach of the Deschutes River from 1962 to 1997 is about 22 percent of the mean August value. This is less than the base flow variations of 30 and 76 percent for the Metolius and Fall Rivers, respectively, during this same period. The smaller variation in ground -water discharge to the Deschutes River results from the larger size of the ground -water contributing area and the distance from the source of recharge. Variations in ground -water discharge to the lower Crooked River can be evaluated using the gage below Opal Springs. This gage is located in the midst of the most prominent ground -water discharge area in the Deschutes Basin. A seepage run made in June 1994 (table 5) showed that ground -water discharge between Terrebonne and the gage at Opal Springs (a distance of about 21 miles) exceeded 1,100 ft3/s, of which over 1,000 ft3/s entered the river in the lower 7 miles of this reach. During much of the year, the streamflow at the Opal Springs gage includes a large amount of surface runoff in addition to ground -water discharge (fig. 22). During the irrigation season, however, most of the flow above Terrebonne is diverted, and flow from up- stream into the ground -water discharge area is normally minuscule compared with the volume of ground -water inflow. Therefore, the late -summer flow at the Opal Springs gage is presumed to be almost entirely ground- water discharge except during anomalous storm events or reservoir releases. August mean flows at the Opal Springs gage between 1962 and 1997 (fig. 22), representing ground- water discharge, exhibit climate -driven long-term variations apparent in other streams in the basin. August mean discharge for the period from 1962 to 1997 ranged from 1,133 to 1,593 ft3/s, a variation of 460 ft3/s, or 35 percent of the mean August discharge. The variation in July mean flows for the same period was only 28 percent. This variation is larger than one would expect given the volume of discharge, apparent size of the ground -water contributing area, and the observed variations in discharge to the Deschutes River. 50 --- 600 W 0 Q 2 v 500 U O wo 3°400 ow z Ow Xa O rj 300 zw Q LL im V 200 C7 z Q 0 LU 100 WW W 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR Figure 21. Approximate August mean ground -water discharge to the middle Deschutes River between Bend and Culver, based on the difference between August mean streamflows at gages below Bend and near Culver, 1954-97. (Fluctuations are caused by variations in ground -water discharge.) 5,000 4,500 Z 4,000 S w W 3,500 aC W a 3,000 w LL U j 2,500 U z O 2,000 J LL 1,500 CC 1,000 500 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR Figure 22. Monthly mean flows of the Crooked River at the gage below Opal Springs, 1962-97. (The line connecting August mean flows approximates late -season ground -water discharge.) 51 1995 This variation may be due to streamflow from above the ground -water discharge area. The Crooked River above the gage includes a very large area of runoff - dominated streams and two major reservoirs. The larger -than -expected variation may also be due to variations in canal leakage, which contributes ground- water inflow to the lower Crooked River. Variations in ground -water discharge to the Metolius, Deschutes, and Crooked Rivers are driven by the same climatic trends and parallel each other. The variations, therefore, are additive and can combine to account for variations in late season monthly mean discharge on the order of 1,000 ft3/s below the confluence area at the gage near Madras. Late -season (July to September) mean monthly flows at the gage near Madras, which are primarily ground- water discharge, average about 4,000 ft3/s. Therefore, climate -driven variations in ground -water discharge can account for late -season streamflow variations of 25 percent at Madras. Analysis of stream -gage data from the lower Crooked River from the early 1900s through the 1960s shows an increase in ground -water discharge that is attributed to irrigation canal leakage. The graph of mean discharge of the lower Crooked River ¢gl (fig. 23) includes data from two different gage sites. 2,000 1,800 00 Z ¢ 1,600 ww c7 cn UJ 1,400 J LU Z LL 1,200 ¢U Um = Z 1,000 z_ Zy Z¢ O 800 w t- �z 600 �N � 400 wQ 200 Prior to the construction of Round Butte Dam and filling of Lake Billy Chinook, the gage was operated on the Crooked River at a now -inundated location near Culver, about 5.6 miles downstream from the present gage location. The flow is different at these two sites because the lower (former) site includes flow from springs not measured by the present gage, causing an offset between the two hydrographs. The hydrograph of August mean discharge of the lower Crooked River shows an overall increase of approximately 400 to 500 ft3/s between 1918 and the early 1960s (fig. 23). The increase is given as a range because the exact amount is uncertain due to year-to-year variability in the flow. This steady, long- term trend of increasing discharge is not observed in other streams, such as the Metolius River, and does not appear to be caused by climate. It is also different from later long-term variations in August mean flows. This increase in base flow to the lower Crooked River is, however, similar in volume to estimated annual mean irrigation canal losses. Moreover, the growth of the increase is similar to that of estimated canal leakage (fig. 23). The return of water lost through canal leakage back to the surface as base flow to the Crooked River is consistent with ground -water flow directions in the area. ----- Estimated annual mean canal leakage Metolius River near Grandview flow Crooked River near Culver flow ...... Crooked River below Opal Springs flow fes. •• s • 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 cvvv YEAR Figure 23. August mean flows of the Crooked River below Opal Springs, the Metolius River near Grandview, and estimated annual mean leakage from irrigation canals, 1905-97. 52 Ground -Water Discharge to Wells Ground water is pumped from wells for a variety of uses in the upper Deschutes Basin, including irrigation, public supply, and private domestic use. Irrigation is primarily agricultural, but can include watering of golf courses and parks. Public -supply systems include publicly and privately owned water utilities, which are typically located in urban and suburban areas. Public -supply use includes not only drinking water, but also commercial, industrial, and municipal uses. Private domestic use generally refers to pumpage by individual wells that typically supply a single residence. Pumpage for each of these uses is discussed in this section. Irrigation Wells Pumpage of ground water for irrigation was estimated using water -rights information from the State of Oregon and crop -water -requirement estimates (fig. 24). Crop -water requirements were estimated, as previously described, for each irrigated 40 -acre tract in the study area. The proportion of each tract irrigated with ground water was identified using water -rights information from the State of Oregon. A well serving as the primary source of water was identified for each tract irrigated using ground water. Where multiple wells supply water to the same 40 -acre tract, the amount of water was proportioned between the wells based on the instantaneous rate information in the water -right files. For example, if it was determined that the crop -water requirements plus irrigation - efficiency requirements totaled 100 acre-ft/yr in a particular 40 -acre tract, and that there were two wells with water rights listing instantaneous rates of 1 and 3 ft3/s, then the two wells would be assigned annual pumpage rates of 25 and 75 acre-ft/yr respectively. The crop -water requirements for all tracts, or parts thereof, were summed for each well. These sums were then divided by the irrigation efficiency (0.75) to derive an estimate of the total pumpage from each well. Water not lost through irrigation inefficiency or transpiration by plants is assumed to return to the ground -water system through deep percolation below the root zone and not be consumptively used. Pumpage of ground water for irrigation was estimated to be about 14,800 acre-ft/yr (an average annual rate of 20.4 ft3/s) during 1994, the year in which the crop -water requirements were estimated. Ground -water pumpage was estimated for each year from 1978 through 1997 by adjusting the 1994 pumpage up or down using an index reflecting the potential evapotranspiration and accounting for the change in the number of water rights with time. Potential evapotranspiration values were derived from the DPM (described in a previous section of this report) and adjusted to more accurately reflect rates measured by the BOR at the AgriMet site near Madras. Estimated ground -water pumpage for irrigation from 1978 to 1997 is shown in figure 24. The geographic distribution of average annual ground- water pumpage for irrigation from 1993 to 1995 is shown in figure 25. 53 Public -Supply Wells Public water -supply systems use a large pro- portion of the ground water pumped in the upper Deschutes Basin. Pumping for public water supplies has increased steadily in recent years in response to population growth (fig. 26). Total ground -water pump - age for public -supply use as of 1995 was estimated to be about 15,100 acre-ft/yr, an average rate of about 20.8 ft3/s. Public -supply pumpage is concentrated primarily in urban and major resort areas, with scat- tered pumpage by smaller, rural systems (fig. 27). Public -supply pumpage was estimated using data provided by operators of the 19 major municipal water systems and private water utilities in the upper basin. The quality and completeness of data from these systems varied widely. Some systems have total- izing flow meters on their wells, while others estimate pumpage using hour meters and known or calculated pumping rates. Complete records were not available for all systems for all years of interest. A variety of techniques was employed to estimate pumpage where records were incomplete or missing. Where data from early years were not available, pumpage was estimated by using estimates of the number of individuals served or the number of connections to the system. In cases where data were missing for certain time intervals, pumpage was estimated by interpolating between prior and later months or years. In some cases, total pump - age for a system was available, but pumping rates for individual wells within the system were only available for a few years or not at all. In such cases, the total pumpage each year was divided between the wells based on available data, and the proportions held constant from year to year. Part of the ground water pumped for public supply returns to the ground -water system through 2 20 O t= 18 Cr o� 16 LL } W a d~ 14 � W n= LL 12 Er W hw- Cr Q 10 60 Z 0 Z 8 0 u) ap 6 Z) 2 Z� Q Z 4 W f - Q 2 r= W W _ 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 YEAR Figure 24. Estimated annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97. a variety of processes, such as seepage from sewage infiltration ponds, leakage from transmission lines, infiltration from on-site septic systems (drainfields), and deep percolation during irrigation. The fraction of public -supply pumpage not returned to the ground- water system through these processes is considered to be consumptively used. The proportion of the gross public -supply pumpage that is consumptively used is not precisely known. Because most of the water returned to sewage treatment plants is returned to the ground -water system, subtracting the volume of water delivered to these plants from the gross amount pumped from wells can provide an estimate of the amount of ground water that is consumptively used. Measurements of ground -water pumpage and wastewater flow for the cities of Redmond and Bend provide information on the percentage of ground- water pumpage consumptively used. Monthly measurements for Redmond from 1988 to 1997 show that, depending on the month, 22 to 92 percent of the ground water pumped is returned to the sewage treatment plant as wastewater (Pat Dorning, City of Redmond, written commun., 1999). Return flows for the city of Bend are comparable to those of Redmond (Roger Prowell, City of Bend, oral commun., 1999). During winter, when water use is relatively low, 80 to 90 percent of the ground water pumped is returned as wastewater, and only 10 to 20 percent is unaccounted for. During summer, when water production is about four times the winter rate, only about 20 to 40 percent of the ground water pumped is returned as waste- water, leaving 60 to 80 percent unaccounted for. The water not returned as wastewater is not, however, all consumptively used. Part of the water not returned as wastewater returns to the ground -water system through leakage from supply and sewer lines. This type of leakage may account for as much as 8 percent of the total pumpage (Jan Wick, Avion Water Company, oral commun., 1999). A large amount of the increased water production during the summer is used for irrigation of lawns, gardens, and parks. Much of this water is used consumptively, lost through evaporation and transpiration by plants, but some percolates below the root zone and returns to the ground -water system. Because municipalities and urban home owners generally employ relatively efficient irrigation techniques such as sprinklers, as opposed to inefficient techniques such as flood irrigation, it is probably reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the increased summer production is used consumptively, but the exact amount in unknown. 54 44°30' 44°0( 43°3 123°00' Figure 25. Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section. 55 122°00' s u 26 Gate ,. 97 g Warm Sprin vicer --- Pelton 11'hin'cc _ Dam J c` rI 10 71c Mt - _ Lake b _ Jeff rson Sunru.ciu:i I'M ,,Ii LE' RoL +d Mac -.as ^p v Chi,uu,k But M`,tnti LLI Q n° Da 11 7° C7 Ri,t �' - Q e m Jpnipe Y Crerk 12 hree Cm p_, v � ' _ iRr !. wrack rrrnir m ere Jack Sha mau �; Gray 13 26 t BI ick 20 S ttiam .)unlr * ',Trail ass Luke ,->, o mg y Mt"� Cyt s may,• ".� L� • ��Urho - Washmglo J 0 n ` i* )b .,rn h<, ` r. •A �4 S,-1 'n t I Rim" Or/unv 6 M Kenzie _ % "'� 26 �rrr•, Pass Z Cline* ■ Buttes v. orth 26 - u` Jc ba ir.Va Sister '-. Sste � o� JM16 C;o out Broken ister Top Reaerroh 17 Spmrka> QS<. CY ,I'unWlo Herd to to ,L -,K.A41old kms, da MI Lava *Bachelor Island �enar H p )ioxnu•+o L„kr Sheridan )jcMountain r Lava Butte* 1 g .p.��:; Sunri cr Millican Q y'(> U Lukc 5/ 6 7 8 9 Ri'"'' 1 12 3 14 15 16 20 froth r. t il�er 'rar+c o !r�`h,e (' J Ne a berr�� olcLa,no �yL Pine Mountain 17 +. V f + ...... „',+Luke r Lake 21 ,. * 9 :ti • Pauline- d� • 22 Maiden Peak °%F IY+,kiup: ,0 Rarrrui L:r Pin Peak Hat S 56 s "".elle Davie ` Q, EXPLANATION Pa /.++k`' w c J rke �;,• �� 23 L Od p e�Yi Total pumpage for irrigation — In •�,. 0' c •n) en C`zv acre-feet per year Od *Bu II Gilchrist a Cresc t Less than 10 24 .Sum uir (o" Li�r�e Crc.(scB'en� 10-50 i '>l 31 50-200 25 r study ere e bOU i� 200-500 More than 500 Y8 Q 97 0 = 5 _ 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS \ 27 Chcmult Figure 25. Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section. 55 c20 c 6 pc >_ 18 OW LL IL 0 tL 16 aW CL n=. U 14 cc Q W LL. �� 12 0 0 z Z)Cn 10 ¢O (!) F QZ z 8 D— Z W j 6 0 Wa D 4 F� W _ 2 m 1 a 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 YEAR Figure 26. Estimated annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97. (Gross pumping figures do not represent actual consumptive use; a significant proportion of the pumped water returns to the ground -water system.) Additional sources of error may be present in consumptive -use estimates based on wastewater return flow. In urban areas, some of the wastewater returned to sewage treatment plants is lost through evaporation from sewage lagoons or infiltration ponds. If sewage effluent is used to irrigate fields, a considerable amount may be lost through evapotranspiration. Consumptive -use estimates may be low if it is assumed that all the wastewater returned to sewage treatment plants is returned to the ground -water system. Estimates of the proportion of ground -water pumpage that is actually consumed and not returned to the ground -water system are clearly influenced by many sources of error and must be considered approximate. Available data suggests that consumptive use ranges from approximately 10 percent of the total pumpage during winter, to approximately 50 to 70 percent during the high -water -use summer. On an annual basis, about 43 percent of the ground water pumped by the. city of Redmond, for example, is returned as wastewater, leaving 57 percent of the water unaccounted for. Return -flow figures and transmission -loss estimates suggest that consumptive use of ground water in urban areas is probably some- what less that 50 percent of the gross annual pumpage. Private Domestic Wells Not all residents of the upper Deschutes Basin are connected to public water supplies; many rely on private domestic wells. Private domestic well use was estimated using OWRD water -well -report files, data from the Oregon Health Division, Drinking Water Section (Dennis Nelson, written commun., 1999), population data from the State of Oregon (1999), and 1990 census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993). As of 1995, an estimated 34,000 individuals, about 27 percent of the population of the study area, obtained water from private domestic wells or small water systems. The percentage of residents on private wells varies between counties. As of 1995, about 22,000 people, or 24 percent of the population, obtained water from private wells in Deschutes County. In Jefferson County, about 1,900 people, 12 percent of the population, relied on private wells. In Crook County, about 8,000 people, 52 percent of the population, obtained water from private wells. An estimated 1,900 people relied on private wells in Klamath County in the study area. The amount of ground -water pumpage by private domestic wells can be roughly estimated based on number of individuals served by such wells. 56 44*30' 44*00 43*3 23*00' Figure 27. Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section. (Gross pumping figures do not represent actual consumptive use; a significant proportion of the pumped water returns to the ground -water system.) 57 122"00' — — — — — — - 26 Claw Warm Springs P.110" Dam J\Y rA 10 MI Lake J6 it V . 177 ot. id Nla, as J_ But r ar 11 b z hree /,,,k ered ped, in A Jack \L —,t-- Gray 13 26 BI ick Litt �2O Bt Ile T ro i I I 0Ing--r" Pass LAI7 4V_ Mt ashingtor rw •iL hCline i"', I "ll . Ricer, Ot wr Al J26 M A.lizi Pass line /I Buttes - -j- 1, 0�tli Y 26 S s ef 16 MiddlE *Sister Z 3 out Broken 1 ti, 3 isle, Top a 4 R 0 1, 1, 17 Spur4, Yt "I 113 a 1r Ik Lava Id , k MI "'ana C *Bachelor Island 01Hrrvuer enhru Lava Lava < Sheridan B utleMillican mountain 19 �,l C) I Li < 20 U I Lake Cultu. 1� 20 6 7 9 Rn, 1 12 1 14 1 *15 16 'T Broth _'h r r 0 ii,;';, Ne wberrh lc,�no Pine mountain 17 J.-I 21 Paulina China 22 Maiden � Y tj',, ki,yr Peak Hat is T_ EXPLANATION Pw 23 _ \C Total pumpage for 040 public supply — In Y"Cel acre-feet per year Od 11 24 But a IjIfil., Butte I Less than 10 I. W 10-50 50-200 25 00 200-500 Stu, area More than 500 26 0 5 10 MILES (L 5 _10 KILOMETERS 27 Chennult U_�=l Figure 27. Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section. (Gross pumping figures do not represent actual consumptive use; a significant proportion of the pumped water returns to the ground -water system.) 57 Per capita water use in the upper Deschutes Basin, estimated by using data from public water -supply systems, varies considerably between systems. Records from public water suppliers indicate that average daily per capita water use for the largest public -supply systems in the study area ranges from 100 to 300 gal/d. Some of these systems supply com- mercial and municipal uses, and the per capita figures from them are not representative of rural dwellings. Many of the private wells in the study area are in rural residential areas served by irrigation districts, so well water is not used for irrigation of lawns. and gardens. Because water from private domestic wells is used primarily for indoor use and not irrigation, per capita pumpage from rural residential domestic wells is con- sidered for estimation purposes to be at the lower end of the calculated range, 100 gaud. If an average per capita pumpage of 100 gaud is used, ground -water pumpage by private domestic wells (assuming 34,000 individuals are served) is approximately 3.4 million gaud, which equals an average annual rate of 5.3 ft3/s. As is discussed in the previous section, all of this water is not used consump- tively. Virtually all of the homes on private domestic wells also use on-site septic systems, so most of the water pumped is returned to the ground -water system through drainfields. Actual consumptive use of ground water by private domestic wells in the upper Des- chutes Basin is, therefore, likely less than 1 to 2 ft3/s. Ground -Water Discharge to Evapotranspiration Most consumption of water by evapotranspira- tion occurs in the unsaturated zone. This water is intercepted as it percolates downward through the unsaturated zone prior to becoming ground water. Evapotranspiration from the unsaturated zone is accounted for by the DPM and occurs outside of the ground -water budget. Thus, the evapotranspiration of water from the unsaturated zone is not considered ground -water discharge. There are, however, circum- stances in which evapotranspiration does consume ground water from the saturated zone. This occurs when the water table is sufficiently shallow to be within the rooting depth of plants, on the order of 5 to 10 ft deep. Evapotr4nspiration of water in this manner is considered ground -water discharge. Broad areas with shallow ground -water con- ditions as described above are rare in the upper Deschutes Basin. The La Pine subbasin is the only significant large region in the study area with shallow ground -water conditions necessary for evapotranspira- tion from the water table. Areas of shallow ground water occur in the drainages of the upper Metolius River and Indian Ford Creek as well, but these are small in comparison to the La Pine subbasin. The potential amount of evapotranspiration from the water table in the La Pine subbasin was estimated to evaluate the significance of this process to the overall ground- water budget. The DPM described earlier in this report cal- culated the amount of potential evapotranspiration throughout the study area. It also calculated the pro- portion of the potential evapotranspiration satisfied by evapotranspiration from the unsaturated zone. The proportion of the potential evapotranspiration not satisfied in this manner is the remaining amount that could be satisfied by evapotranspiration from the water table, and is termed the residual evapotranspiration. The DPM estimated that the residual evapotranspira- tion in the La Pine area equals an average annual instantaneous rate of about 5.7 x 10-8 ft/s (feet per second) (22 in./yr), which is equivalent to about 1.6 ft3/s/mi2. The probable area over which the water table is within 10 ft of land surface in the La Pine subbasin is estimated to be about 50 mit, based on water -level measurements in the La Pine subbasin taken in June 1999. During that time of year, the rate of evapotranspiration would be greatest. If the maximum residual evapotranspiration is lost to evapo- transpiration over the entire 50 mit, it would represent an average annual rate of about 80 ft3/s. To transpire at the full residual evapotranspiration rate, however, the water table would have to be virtually at land surface. In reality, the water table is probably near the margin of the rooting depth of plants, so the actual amount of evapotranspirative loss from the water table is probably much less than 80 ft3/s. The values for evapotranspiration presented in this section are rough estimates, but serve to illustrate the magnitude of the probable ground -water discharge through evapotrans- piration for comparison with other parts of the ground- water flow budget. GROUND -WATER ELEVATIONS AND FLOW DIRECTIONS Hydrologists describe the force driving ground- water movement as hydraulic head, or simply, head. Ground water flows from areas of high head to areas of low head. In an unconfined aquifer, such as a gravel 58 deposit along a stream or a fractured lava flow near land surface, the elevation of the water table represents the head at the upper surface of the aquifer. Ground water flows in the direction the water table slopes, from high -elevation (high -head) areas toward low - elevation (low -head) areas. The change in head with distance, or head gradient, is simply the slope of the water table. Some aquifers, however, are confined by overlying strata with low permeability called confining units. A confined aquifer, for example, may be several hundreds of feet below land surface. The water in such an aquifer is often under pressure. When a well penetrates the aquifer, the water will rise in the well to some elevation above the top of the aquifer. The elevation to which the water rises is the head at that place in the aquifer. Water moves in confined aquifers from areas of high head to areas of low head just as in unconfined aquifers. Multiple confined aquifers can occur one on top of another separated by confining units. The heads in multiple confined aquifers may differ with depth resulting in vertical head gradients. If a well connects multiple aquifers with different heads, water can flow up or down the well from the aquifer with high head to the aquifer with low head. The distribution of head in an unconfined aquifer is represented by the elevation and slope of the water table. The distribution of head in a confined aquifer is represented by an imaginary surface known as a potentiometric surface. A potentiometric surface can be delineated by evaluating the static water -level elevations in wells that penetrate a confined aquifer. In this report, the distinction between confined and unconfined aquifers is not critical to most of the discussion and is generally not made. The term ground -water elevation is used instead of head in the following discussion because it is more intuitively understandable. Furthermore, the term water table is used loosely to describe the general distribution of ground -water elevation in an area whether the aquifers are confined or unconfined. The important concept is that ground water moves from areas of high ground- water elevation (high head) to areas of low ground- water elevation (low head). In the upper Deschutes Basin, ground -water elevations are highest in the Cascade Range, the locus of ground -water recharge in the basin, and lowest in the vicinity of the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers, the principal discharge area. The geographic distribution of ground -water elevations in the upper Deschutes Basin was deter- 59 mined in this study using a variety of types of data. In the developed parts of the study area, primarily the areas of privately owned land, water -level elevations were determined by measuring water levels in wells. In some instances, conditions precluded measurements and water levels reported by drillers were used. Data from geothermal exploration wells provided a small amount of water -level information in the Cascade Range and at Newberry Volcano. Very few water wells exist in the vast tracts of public land that com- pose much of the upper Deschutes Basin. In those areas, the sparse water -well data was augmented with elevation data from large volume springs and gaining stream reaches. Major discharge features such as these represent points at which the water -table elevation and land -surface elevation coincide. Horizontal Ground -Water Flow In the upper Deschutes Basin, ground water moves along a variety of paths from the high -elevation recharge areas in the Cascade Range toward the low -elevation discharge areas near the margins of the Cascade Range and near the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. The generalized ground -water elevation map (fig. 28), based on hydraulic -head measurements in deep wells and on the mapped elevations of major springs and gaining stream reaches, shows the general direction of regional ground -water flow in different parts of the upper basin. The map is generalized and does not reflect local areas of shallow ground water caused by irrigation and canal and stream leakage. In the southern part of the upper Deschutes Basin, ground water flows from the Cascade Range (including the Mt. Bachelor area) towards the high lakes area and the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers in the La Pine subbasin. Ground water flows from Newberry Volcano toward the La Pine subbasin and toward the north. The water table in the La Pine subbasin is relatively flat, with an elevation of about 4,200 ft and a slight gradient generally toward the north-northeast. In this area the water table is shallow, often within several feet of land surface. North of Benham Falls, the gradient increases dramatically and the water table slopes steeply to the northeast. As a result, the regional water table, which is very close to land surface in the La Pine subbasin, is several hundred feet below land surface near Bend. 44°30' 44°00' 43°30' 122°00' 123°00' Figure 28. Generalized lines of equal hydraulic head and ground -water flow directions in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. (This map does not reflect shallow, local saturated zones caused by canal and stream leakage. Arrows show approximate direction of regional ground -water flow.) 60 Ground -water elevations are relatively high in the southeast part of the Deschutes Basin near Millican, indicating that ground water flows from that area toward the northwest into the lower parts of the basin. As described previously, some water likely enters the southeastern part of the Deschutes Basin from the Fort Rock Basin (Miller, 1986). In the northern part of the study area, ground water flows from the Cascade Range to the northeast into the lower part of the basin toward ground -water discharge areas near the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. In the central part of the study area, around Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, the water table is rela- tively flat between an elevation of 2,600 and 2,800 ft, although there is a gradual gradient to the north toward the confluence area (fig. 28). The water table in the Bend area is generally hundreds of feet below land surface. The northward slope of the water table is less than the northward slope of the land, however, so the water table is closer to land surface in the Redmond area. North of Redmond, the deep canyons of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers are incised to the eleva- tion of the regional water table, so ground water flows toward, and discharges to, streams that act as drains to the ground -water flow system. Water -level contours are generally parallel to the canyons in the confluence area, indicating flow directly toward the rivers. A striking feature of the generalized water -table map (fig. 28) is the linear zone of closely spaced contours (indicating a high horizontal head gradient) that trends northwest -southeast across the upper basin. There are at least four possible explanations for this feature. First, the feature generally follows the topography. It also is likely related to the distribution of precipitation, which shows a similarly oriented high gradient region, particularly in the northern part of the mapped area. The flattening of the water -table surface to the northeast, which partly defines the high - gradient zone, is likely due to permeability contrasts related to the stratigraphy. The low -gradient area in the northeastern part of the map corresponds to that part of the Deschutes Formation where permeable fluvial deposits are an important component. Lastly, the linear zone could be, in part, an artifact of the geographic and vertical distribution of head data, particularly southeast of Bend where data are sparse. The northwest -trending high -head -gradient zone does not generally correspond with mapped faults. 61 Vertical Ground -Water Flow Ground -water elevation (or head) can vary vertically as well as horizontally. At many locations, wells with different depths have different water levels. In recharge areas, where water enters the ground- water system, ground water generally moves down- ward and there is a downward head gradient (fig. 29). In recharge areas, water -level elevations are lower in deep wells and higher in shallow wells. If a well penetrates multiple aquifers in a recharge area, water can flow downward in the well from one aquifer to another. In areas where ground -water flow is primarily horizontal and there is little vertical movement of water, vertical gradients are small. In discharge areas, water from deep aquifers under pressure moves upward from depth and there is an upward head gradient. In discharge areas, deep wells have higher water -level elevations than shallow wells, and, if upward head gradients are sufficiently large, water levels in deep wells can be above land surface, causing water from the wells to flow at land surface. Downward head gradients are common through- out much of the upper Deschutes Basin, including the Cascade Range and lower parts of the basin around Bend and Redmond. In the Cascade Range, the large amount of recharge causes downward movement of ground water and strong downward head gradients. Evidence of this downward flow in the Cascade Range is commonly seen in temperature -depth logs of geothermal wells (Blackwell, 1992; Ingebritsen and others, 1992). Temperature data show downward flow to a depth of at least 1,640 ft below land surface in an exploration well drilled near Santiam Pass (Blackwell, 1992). Similar large downward head gradients were observed in the Mt. Hood area in the Cascade Range north of the study area by Robison and others (1981). Downward head gradients in the lower parts of the basin result primarily from artificial recharge from leaking irrigation canals. Ground -water elevations are artificially high in areas around networks of leak- ing irrigation canals. In some places, artificially high ground -water levels are observed only in scattered wells close to major canals. In other places, such as north and northwest of Bend, high ground -water elevations are maintained over a broad region by canal leakage. There are also isolated areas of shallow ground water that may be related to natural recharge from stream leakage. SW NE 8 22-137 inches 4-22 inches per year — r 4 — per year Less than 4 inches per year 8,000 Three recharge recharge Sisters recharge 7,00 area 7,000 Area of high recharge - Area of low recharge - Discharge area - large downward flow component small downward flow component upward flow component 8,00 6,000 t5 5, 5,000 W, = / f0 7 ♦ m LL Z 4,00 y a Y C c Z 4,000 L1J w /V Land surface ti ; ° U J 3,00 r r Water table �' � ° 3,000 2,00 > x� ',` i - r---�� I / " 2,000 006ofOqWLtMa�t# 1,00 t ' 1,000 , � x' ,y Srp� �a ted ,. SEA LEVEE• LEVEL NOT TO SCALE Figure 29. Diagrammatic section southwest -northeast across the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, showing flow directions and lines of.equal hydraulic head. Separate sets of water -level elevation contours for shallow wells (generally 100 to 300 ft deep) and deep wells (generally,500 to 900 ft deep) were drafted for the area around Bend, Redmond, and Sisters (fig. 30). In the area nort)i and northwest of Bend, water -level elevations in shallow wells are 200 to 400 ft higher than water -level elevations in deep wells. At some locations, water levels in shallow and deep wells differ by over 500 ft. The shape and location of this area of high water levels suggests that it is caused by canal losses; for the most part it does not coincide with potential natural sources of recharge. Caldwell (1998) showed that shallow ground water is isotopically very similar to canal and stream water, which also suggests that canal and stream leakage are a principal source of recharge for shallow ground water. There are isolated areas in the upper Deschutes Basin where anomalously high ground -water eleva- tions likely result from natural causes. Such areas are present along the Deschutes River about halfway between Bend and Redmond (near Awbrey Falls) and west of Redmond. Elevated shallow water levels in these areas are likely caused by natural leakage from the Deschutes River. The relatively high shal- low ground water in the Sisters area is also probably natural, as no significant source of artificial recharge is present. Local recharge from leaking irrigation canals throughout the populated areas in the lower basin, and the resulting vertical head gradients, cause water - level elevations to vary from well to well in an area depending on the depth. In addition, water -level elevations can vary as the canals are turned on and off. Consequently, it can be difficult to accurately pre- dict the depth to water at many locations, particularly where data from wells are sparse. Upward head gradients are not commonly encountered in the upper Deschutes Basin. There are a number of possible causes for this. There is widespread artificial recharge from canal leakage and deep percolation of irrigation water throughout much of the populated area resulting in widespread downward gradients over most of the area where there are data. In addition, the streams to which most ground water discharges in the lower basin have cut deep into the aquifer system, allowing much of the water to discharge laterally without upward vertical movement. Finally, there are few wells that penetrate to depths below the elevation of streams in the major discharge area, where upward gradients would be expected. 62 44°30' 4400 122045' 0 5 10 MILES EXPLANATION 0 5 10 KILOMETERS —5000— Line of equal hydraulic head In deep zones — In feet above sea level nnIA�--INN= -AW CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEET —3000— Line of equal hydraulic head In shallow zones — In feet above sea level o Field -located well Figure 30. Generalized lines of equal hydraulic head for shallow and deep water -bearing zones in the central part of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. (Elevated heads in shallow zones are due to infiltration of water from leaking irrigation canals, on-farm losses, and stream leakage.) A substantial upward head gradient exists in the area of the lower Crooked River at depths below river level. A 740 -ft well drilled near river level at Opal Springs had an artesian flow of 4,500 gal/min and a shut-in pressure of 50 pounds per square inch, indicating that the aquifer tapped by the well has a hydraulic head (water -level elevation) over 115 ft above the elevation of the river. This large upward gradient indicates upward ground -water flow toward the river. 63 FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUND -WATER LEVELS The elevation of the water table is not static; it fluctuates with time in response to a number of factors, the most important of which are variations in recharge, canal operation, and pumping. In this section, ground- water -level fluctuations in the upper Deschutes Basin are described, the controlling factors identified, and the implications with regard to the regional hydrology are discussed. Ground -water -level fluctuation data are collected by taking multiple water -level measurements in the same well over a period of time. Multiple water -level measurements are available for 103 wells in the upper Deschutes Basin. These wells were monitored for periods ranging from less than 1 year to more than 50 years; measurements were taken at intervals rang- ing from once every 2 hours (using automated record- ing devices) to once or twice a year. Fourteen wells in the basin have been monitored by OWRD for periods ranging from 9 to more than 50 years. Generally, measurements have been taken in these wells one to four times a year. Seventy-three wells were measured quarterly during this study for periods ranging from 1 to 4 years. Nineteen of these wells also were mea- sured quarterly for 1 to 2 years during the late 1970s. Sixteen wells were instrumented with continuous recorders, devices that measured and recorded the water -level elevation every 2 hours. These short - interval measurements effectively create a continuous -20 rJ 20 w LL 40 o= w 60 O 80 a p 100 120 140960 record of water -level elevation changes. Graphs of water -level fluctuations in all of these wells are pub- lished in the data report for this study (Caldwell and Truini, 1997). Large -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations The most substantial ground -water -level fluctuations in the upper Deschutes Basin, in terms of both magnitude and geographic extent, occur in and adjacent to the Cascade Range, including parts of the La Pine subbasin. These fluctuations are exemplified by the hydrographs of wells 21S/11E-19CCC, near La Pine, and 15S/10E-08ACD, near Sisters (fig. 31). The water level in both these wells fluctuates up to 20 ft with a cycle averaging roughly 11 years. A comparison of these water -level fluctuations with precipitation at Crater Lake in the Cascade Range (fig. 31) indicates that periods of high ground -water - level elevations generally correspond to periods of high precipitation, and low water -level elevations cor- respond to periods of low precipitation. This relation, of course, is to be expected. During periods of high precipitation, the rate of ground -water recharge exceeds, at least temporarily, the rate of discharge. When ground -water recharge exceeds discharge, the amount of ground water in storage must increase, causing the water table to rise. During dry periods, in contrast, the rate of discharge may exceed the rate of recharge, and ground -water levels drop as a result. i ... 0... Well 21 S/1 1 E-1 9CCC — Well15S/10E-08ACD — Crater Lake Precipitation - Cumulative departure from normal W Lu 0 x 0z -20 ¢LL z Lu Er O -40 H Er aaa -60 w U ow Lu 0, 80 > J F- g� 100 2 z �a 0 -120 , J i i i I -140 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR Figure 31. Static water levels in two long-term observation wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1962-98. 64 Fluctuations in the water -table elevation in response to variations in recharge are most prominent in the Cascade Range, the primary recharge area. A comparison of hydrographs of wells at varying distances from the Cascade Range (fig. 32) shows that as distance from the recharge area increases, the magnitude of fluctuations decreases, and the timing of the response is delayed. During the period from 1993 through early 1999, ground -water levels in and near the Cascade Range, such as in wells 14S/9E-08ABA and 15S/10E-08ACD, rose over 20 ft in response to an abrupt change from drought conditions to wetter -than -normal conditions. Wells 15S/10E-36AAD2 and 15S/10E-02CDA, a few miles to the east of Sisters, farther away from the Cascade Range, showed a smaller rise in water level (less than 20 ft), and a slight delay in response. Well 14S/12E-09ACB several miles farther east near Lower Bridge, exhibited only a slight rise in water level, less than 2 ft, in response to the end of the drought, and an apparent delay in response. Long-term trends in wells with seasonal fluctuations, such as well 14S/12E-09ACB, are evaluated by comparing annual high and low water levels from year to year. Farther east near Redmond, water levels in wells 15S/13E- 04CAB and 15S/13E-18ADD had barely stopped declining even 2 years after the end of the drought. Water levels in these wells had not started to rise as of early 1999. Long-term records show that the water level in well 15S/13E-18ADD has fluctuated about 10 ft since 1971 compared to 23 ft in well 15S/10E-08ACD to the west closer to the recharge area (Caldwell and Truini, 1997, fig. 8). In addition, the decadal-scale peaks and troughs in the hydrograph of well 15S/13E-18ADD are broad and lag those of the well 15S/10E-08ACD by roughly 2 years. The eastward -increasing delay in the water - level response to changes in recharge in the Cascade Range is depicted by a series of maps in figure 33. These maps show the annual direction of water -level change from March 1994 to March 1998 for observa- tion wells throughout the upper basin. From March 1994 to March 1995, during the drought, water levels dropped in nearly all wells. Between March 1995 and March 1996, water levels in wells along the Cascade Range margin rose while water levels in wells to the east continued to decline. Over the next 2 years, the trend of rising water levels migrated eastward. 65 The attenuation and delay of water -level fluctuations with distance from the recharge source is analogous to the attenuation and delay in ground- water discharge peaks with increasing basin size, as discussed in the previous section. The effects of recharge variations are diffused with distance in the aquifer system. Water -level fluctuations and attenuated with increasing depth as well as with increasing horizontal distance from the recharge area. This can be seen by comparing the hydrographs of wells 21S/11E-19CCC and 22S/1OE- 14CCA, which are about 5 miles apart in geographically similar settings in the La Pine subbasin (fig. 34). Well 21S/I IE-19CCC is 100 ft deep and pro- duces water from a sand and gravel deposit between a depth of 95 and 100 ft. Well 22S/10E-14CCA is 555 ft deep and taps water -bearing zones between 485 and 545 ft below land surface within a thick sequence of fine-grained sediment. The water level in the well 21S/11E-19CCC was declining until early 1995 when it started to rise in response to the end of drought conditions. The water level rose over 15 ft by early 1997 in a manner similar to wells close to the Cascade Range. The water level in well 22S/1OE- 14CCA, in contrast, declined until early 1996, and by 1999 had risen only about 7 ft in response to the end of drought conditions. Local -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations In addition to basinwide ground -water -elevation fluctuations, smaller -scale, localized water -table fluctuations occur. These more isolated water -table fluctuations are caused by varying rates of recharge from local sources, such as leaking streams and canals, and by ground -water pumping, Water -level fluctuations due to irrigation canal leakage occur in many wells throughout the irrigated areas in the central part of the study area, with water levels rising during the irrigation season when canals are flowing and dropping when canals are dry. The magnitude of these annual fluctuations varies with the proximity of the well to the canal, the depth of the well, and the local geology. Annual fluctuations due to canal leakage of nearly 100 ft have been documented (see well 17S/12E-08ABD in Caldwell and Truini (1997), p. 20), although fluctuations in the range of 1 to 10 ft are more common. 280 290 300 310 95 105 115 125 280 290 ru LU W 300 Z LU 3 310 O ~ 140 a w 0 150 160 160 170 180 220 230 240 270 280 290 . ,, ......ter. -T : 14S/9E-08ABA 15S/10E-08ACD I l l l l l l i T 15S/10E-36AAD2 15S/10E-02CDA 14S/12E-09ACB 15S/13E-04CAB 15S/13E-18ADD 1001 199a 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DATE Figure 32. Variations in static water levels of selected wells at various distances from the Cascade Range, 1994-98. (The hydrographs show that the abrupt rise in water level in response to the change from drought conditions to wetter -than -normal conditions observed in the Cascade Range [uppermost hydrograph] is attenuated and delayed eastward out into the basin.) 66 March 1994 to March 1995 j 1(( • 11,x_ ®v EXPLANATION • Water -level decline • Water -level rise Figure 33. Year-to-year changes in March static water levels in observation wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1994-98. 67 10 LU LL 20 z x W 30 50 60 -*-Well 21 S/11 E-19CCC (100 ft deep) -*-Well 22S/10E-14CCA (550 ft deep) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DATE Figure 34. Static water -level variations in a shallow well and a deep well in the La Pine subbasin, Oregon. Ground -water levels can respond rapidly to canal leakage, even at considerable depths, particularly in areas where fractured lava dominates in the subsurface. The water level in well 18S/12E-03DDC responds in a matter of days to the operation of main irrigation - diversion canals, which are about one-half mile away (fig. 35). The water level in this well starts to rise shortly after the canals start flowing and starts to drop soon after they are shut off for the season, peaking late in the irrigation season. In addition, the water table responds to periods of short-term operation of the canal, typically for several days during the winter for stock watering. The static water level in well 18S/12E- 03DDC is over 600 ft below land surface, and the shallowest wells in the area have water levels of 300 to 400 ft below land surface. The rapid response of the water table to canal leakage at such depth is likely due to rapid downward movement of water through interconnected vertical fractures in the lava flows. Water -table fluctuations can be more subdued and delayed in areas underlain by sedimentary materials where there are no vertical fractures and there is more resistance to downward movement of water. Well 15S/13E-04CAB (fig. 36) shows an annual water - level fluctuation that differs substantially from that of well 18S/12E-03DDC (fig. 35). The amount of fluctuation is somewhat less and the hydrograph is smooth, nearly sinusoidal, reflecting no short-term effects due to winter stock runs. In addition, the annual peak water level in well 15S/13E-04CAB, which occurs in October or November, is much later than that of well 18S/12E-03DDC, which occurs in August or September. The hydrograph of well 15S/13E-04CAB in figure 36 also shows a year-to-year decline in water levels due to drought effects superimposed on the annual fluctuations. Water levels are affected by variations in stream - flow as well as canal operation. In areas where stream elevations are above the adjacent ground -water eleva- tions, streams typically lose water to the ground -water system due to leakage through the streambed. In some areas, the rate of stream leakage is not constant, but varies with streamflow. As streamflow increases and the elevation of the stream rises, a larger area of the stream bed is wetted providing a larger area through which water can leak. The most substantial stream losses measured in the basin occur along the Deschutes River between Sunriver and Bend, where the river loses, on average, about 113 ft3/s (fig. 12). The amount of loss is known to be stage -dependent and to vary with streamflow (fig. 13). This means that the ground -water recharge in the vicinity of the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Bend varies with streamflow as well. 68 The variations in local recharge caused by changes in streamflow cause water -level fluctuations in some wells between Benham Falls and Bend (fig. 37). The stage and discharge in the Deschutes River in this reach is controlled by reservoir operations upstream. Stream - flow is highest from April to October as water is re- leased from the reservoirs to canal diversions near Bend. \, 0200 z L) 180 LU oC 160 W a 140 LU U 120 m V 100 z w 80 F Ct 60 3 40 LL J z 20 U 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 DATE 636 637 638 639 LL z 640 641 ¢ 3 6420 643 a w 0 644 645 646 Figure 35. Relation between static water -level variations in a deep well near Bend, Oregon, and flow rate in a nearby irrigation canal. 0 Z 700 0 U LU 600 W IL 500 w LL U j 400 U z w 300 H 3 200 O J LL LL 100 a z ¢ U 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DATE 229 230 231 LL z 232 W H d 3 233 p 2 H 234 w 0 235 236 Figure 36. Relation between static water -level variations in a well near Redmond, Oregon, and flow rate in a nearby irrigation canal. As a result, changes in streamflow (and stage) can be relatively abrupt. The water level in well 19S/1IE- 16ACC, about 500 ft from the river near the Benham Falls gage, rises and falls in response to river stage (fig. 37). Abrupt changes in streamflow usually manifest in the well within a few to several days. These effects are much less pronounced, however, in wells farther from the river. The water level in well 18S/11E-21CDD, about 1 mile from the river, also fluctuates in response to river stage, but the fluctuations are subdued and the hydrograph is nearly sinusoidal, showing only the slightest inflections in response to abrupt changes in streamflow. In addition, the peaks and troughs in the hydrograph 69 of well 18S/11E-21CDD lag those of well 19S/11E- 16ACC and river stage by 1 to 2 months. The relation between ground -water levels and streamflow is apparent in ground -water discharge areas as well as in recharge areas; however, the process is reversed. In areas of losing streams (recharge areas), streamflow variations can cause water -table fluctua- tions as described in the previous paragraph. In ground- water discharge areas, however, water -table fluctua- tions cause variations in streamflow. This is illustrated by comparing a graph of the discharge of Fall River, a spring -fed stream, with a graph of typical long- term water -table fluctuations at the Cascade Range margin as seen in well 15S/10E-08ACD (fig. 38). w 4,150 Q W W 4,145 ULL z V1 - W V 2 a 4,140 O 'r O W 4,135 JJ W W W 3:4.130 �o J Q aC H 4,125 3 —River Stage ' ""' • • • • • • • Well 19S/11 E-16ACC, 500 ft from river —Well 18S/11 E-21 CDD, 5,000 ft from river 1994 1995 1996 DATE 3,775 3,770 O� LL W I LL 0 Z 3,765 ¢ o wU_ W N 3,760 w J OD CE W J J UJ 3,755 3 3 3,750 Figure 37. Relation between static water -level variations in two wells at different distances from the Deschutes River and stage of the river at Benham Falls. 250 OC W a o 200 LL O ¢ U 0w ¢ W 150 Q W QLL S� UW V 100 zm �U 50 J x z z O M 0 —Fall River —Well 15S/1OE-08ACD 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 19yu 1aa0 YEAR d U ¢ OR W J J FF W CC UJ 5 L LL z_ lw 3 O CL CL LU 0 Figure 38. Relation between monthly mean discharge of Fall River and static water -level variation in a well near Sisters, Oregon, 1962-97. It can be seen that spring flow increases during periods when the water table is high, and decreases when the water table is low. This process works on a larger scale to cause the temporal variations in ground -water discharge to major streams described previously. Water -table fluctuations can be caused by ground -water pumping as well as by variations in recharge. When a well is pumped, the water table in the vicinity of the well is'lowered due to the removal of ground water from storage. A conical depression centered around the well develops on the water table (or potentiometric surface in the case of a confined aquifer) and expands until it captures sufficient dis- charge and/or induces enough new recharge to equal the pumping rate. After pumping ceases, the water table recovers as the aquifer returns to pre -pumping conditions. Key factors that determine the magnitude of water -table fluctuations caused by pumping are the aquifer characteristics, the rate and duration of pumping, the presence of aquifer boundaries, and the number of wells. In aquifers that have low perme- ability, pumping -induced water -table fluctuations can be large and even interfere with the operation of other wells. If the long-term average pumping rate exceeds the rate at which the aquifer can supply water, water levels will not recover fully and long-term water -level declines will occur. 70 Water -table fluctuations caused by ground- water pumping are apparent in only a few of the wells monitored in the upper Deschutes Basin. Pumping effects appear to be small (less than a few feet of drawdown), seasonal in nature, and of limited geographic extent. No long-term water -level declines caused by pumping are apparent in any of the data. Nearly all of the wells that were measured quarterly and that show annual fluctuations have high water levels during or shortly after the irrigation season, indicating that the water -table fluctuation is caused by canal leakage. A few of the wells that were measured quarterly show low water levels during the summer, suggesting a possible influence from irrigation pumping, but the small number of water - level measurements prevents any definite conclusions. These occurrences are not widespread. Of the 16 wells that had continuous water -level recorders, pumping effects are apparent only in well 14S/12E-09ACB in the Lower Bridge area (fig. 39). This unused well shows an annual cycle in which the water level drops during the irrigation season, from about April to about September, and then rises during the off season. The annual variation is approximately 2 to 3 ft. The shape of the hydrograph of this well indicates drawdown and recovery most likely due to pumping of an irrigation well about a mile away. Although irrigation pumping causes a seasonal water - level decline in this well, there is no evidence of any long-term water -level decline. The only obvious long-term water -level trend seen in the well is the basinwide trend related to climate cycles. The lack of any apparent long-term pumping effects in this well is significant, because the Lower Bridge area contains the highest concentration of irrigation wells in the basin. Water levels in the two other centers of ground- water pumping in the basin, the Bend and Redmond areas, show no apparent influence from ground -water pumping. Large amounts of ground water are pumped in both of these areas for public water -supply use, yet no pumping -related seasonal or long-term trends are apparent in observation well data. Any pumping influence is likely small due to the high aquifer permeability, and is undetectable due to the masking effects of canal leakage and climate -driven water -level fluctuations. 71 Ground -water levels in part of Jefferson County rose dramatically in response to the filling of Lake Billy Chinook behind Round Butte Dam in 1964. Water levels in two wells (11S/12E-21 ABB and 11S/12E-26AAC) monitored by Portland General Electric, on opposite sides of the dam and about a mile away, rose approximately 120 and 100 ft, respectively, within about 10 years of filling of the reservoir (fig.40). Because these are the only two wells monitored in the area with records extending back to the time prior to the filling of the reservoir, the full extent and magnitude of the effects of the reservoir are not clearly known. A comparison of water -level elevations mapped by Stearns (193 1) with those mapped during this study (fig. 28) suggests that water levels have risen as much as 100 ft over a fairly large region from Round Butte, south to Juniper Butte, and extending east as far as Highway 97. Increases in water -level elevation were likely even greater close to the reservoir. No data are available to evaluate the probable water -level rise west and north of the reservoir, but water levels were almost certainly similarly affected. Water levels appear to have risen north of Round Butte in the vicinity of Lake Simtustus as well, but data are sparse and the magnitude and extent of any water -level rise are unknown. Although data are scarce, water levels appear not to have been affected as far north and east as Madras. A 1953 water - level measurement in one of the city of Madras water - supply wells is comparable to measurements made recently, long after the effects of Lake Billy Chinook should have been apparent. Some of the wells in Jefferson County show an anomalous rising water -level trend that appears to have started in the mid-1980s. The hydrograph of well 11S/12E-26AAC (fig. 40) shows that the water level appeared to have largely stabilized in response to the filling of Lake Billy Chinook by the mid 1970s, but then started an upward trend beginning about 1985, rising over 20 ft since that time. Of the four other wells in the vicinity with sufficient record, two do not show this recent rising trend (fig. 40, well 11S/12E-21 ABB), and two show water level rises of approximately 2 and 6 ft. This local water -table rise is an enigma in that it occurs during a period when water levels were dropping throughout much of the upper basin as a result of drought. There are no apparent changes in irrigation practices or canal operations L 1 1 DATE Figure 39. Static water level in an unused irrigation well near Lower Bridge (1 4S/1 2E-09ACB), showing seasonal pumping effects from nearby irrigation wells and long-term climatic effects. 250 r W LL Z m 300 Q N W 350 cr O ¢ 400 W H 3 O F- 450 F 0- W 0 500 Well 11 S/1 2E-21 ABB - Well 11 S/1 2E-26AAC 650 W W Z 700 - U Q m N W 750 800 O¢ W F O 850 F a W 0 900 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 DATE Figure 40. Water levels in two wells near Round Butte Dam, showing the rise in ground -water elevations caused by the filling of Lake Billy Chinook. that could account for the observed upward trend. Water levels in wells in the Madras area rose after the city changed their primary source of water from wells to Opal Springs and greatly reduced their ground- water pumping, but this occurred in 1987, 2 years after the water level appears to have started to rise in well 11S/12E-26AAC (fig. 40). Although not entirely coincident, this reduction in pumping may have contributed to the observed water -level rise. It is also possible that the rise is a boundary effect related to the filling of Lake Billy Chinook, implying that the ground -water system is not yet in equilibrium with the reservoir even though water levels appeared to have stabilized in the late 1970s. 72 _—MIN&. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Regional ground -water flow in the upper Des- chutes Basin is primarily controlled by the distribution of recharge, the geology, and the location and eleva- tion of streams. Ground water flows from the principal recharge areas in the Cascade Range and Newberry Volcano, toward discharge areas along the margin of the Cascade Range and near the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. At the regional scale, distribution of recharge mimics that of precipitation. The annual precipitation rate shows considerable geographic variation through- out the upper Deschutes Basin. The Cascade Range, which constitutes the western boundary of the basin, locally receives in excess of 200 inches per year, mostly as snow. The central part of the study area, in contrast, typically receives less than 10 inches per year. The young Quaternary volcanic deposits and thin soils in the Cascade Range allow rapid infiltration of much of the rain and snowmelt, making the Cascade Range the locus of ground -water recharge for the basin. The average annual rate of recharge from precipitation basinwide is about 3,800 ft3/s (cubic feet per second). Precipitation provides relatively little ground -water recharge in the low -elevation areas in the central part of the basin; however, leaking irriga- tion canals are locally a significant source of recharge. It is estimated that 46 percent of the water diverted for irrigation is lost through canal leakage. The average annual rate of leakage from irrigation canals during 1994 was estimated to be 490 ft3/s. Part of the ground water recharged in the Cascade Range discharges to spring -fed streams at lower elevations in the range and along margins of adjacent lowlands. The remain- der of the ground water continues in the subsurface toward the central part of the basic, where most of it discharges to the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers in the vicinity of their confluence. Most ground water in the upper Deschutes Basin flows through Neogene and younger deposits of the Cascade Range and Deschutes Formation. The underlying late Eocene to early Miocene deposits of the John Day Formation and the hydrothermally altered rocks at depth beneath the Cascade Range generally have very low permeability and are neither a significant source of ground water nor a medium through which it can easily flow. These older rocks crop out along the northern and eastern margins of the study area and underlie much of the upper basin at depth. Low -permeability rock units constitute the lower, northern, and eastern boundaries to the regional flow system. The interaction between ground water and streams is controlled largely by the relative elevations of the water table and adjacent streams. In the La Pine subbasin, south of Benham Falls, the water -table elevation is near land surface. Stream gains and losses along most of the Deschutes and -Little Deschutes Rivers in this area are small, indicating relatively little net exchange between ground water and surface water. North of Benham Falls, the northward slope of the water table is larger than the slope of the land surface, so depths to ground water increase northward toward Bend. In the central and eastern parts of the study area, ground -water elevations are typically hundreds of feet below the elevations of streams. Although ground- water levels are considerably below stream elevations in this area, streams do not lose appreciable amounts of water, because streambeds have been largely sealed by infiltration of fine sediment. One notable exception is the Deschutes River, which loses on average approximately 113 ft3/s between Sunriver and Bend, likely into the youthful Holocene basalt erupted from Lava Butte. 73 The Deschutes and Crooked Rivers have incised canyons in the northern part of the study area. The canyons become increasingly deep northward toward Lake Billy Chinook, reaching depths of several hundred feet below the surrounding terrain. About 10 to 15 miles above their confluence, the canyons of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers are of sufficient depth to intersect the regional water table, and both streams gain flow from ground -water discharge. Seepage runs show that the Deschutes River and lower Squaw Creek combined gain about 400 ft3/s from ground -water discharge in this area prior to entering Lake Billy Chinook, and the lower Crooked River gains about 1,100 ft3/s before entering the lake. Ground -water discharge to Lake Billy Chinook is roughly 420 ft3/s. The total ground -water discharge in the confluence area is approximately 2,300 ft3/s. This ground -water discharge, along with the flow of the Metolius River (which is predominantly ground -water discharge during the dry seasons), makes up virtually all the flow of the Deschutes River at Madras during the summer and early fall. Geologic factors are the primary cause of the large ground -water discharge in the confluence area. The permeable Neogene deposits, through which virtually all regional ground water flows, become increasingly thin northward as the low -permeability John Day Formation nears the surface. The John Day Formation is exposed in the canyon of the Deschutes River about 10 miles north of Lake Billy Chinook near Pelton Dam, marking the northern extent of the per- meable regional aquifer system. Most of the regional ground water in the upper basin discharges to the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers south of this location. There is no appreciable ground -water discharge directly to the Deschutes River downstream of this point, and the small gains in streamflow that do occur result primarily from tributary inflow. Geological evidence and hydrologic budget calculations indicate that virtually all ground water not consumptively used in the upper Deschutes Basin discharges to the stream system upstream of the vicinity of Pelton Dam. Moreover, virtually the entire flow of the Deschutes River at Madras is supported by ground -water discharge during the summer and early fall. Ground water and surface water are, therefore, directly linked, and removal of ground water will ultimately diminish streamflow. Analysis of the fluctuations of water -table eleva- tions and ground -water discharge rates in response to stresses on the ground -water system, such as canal operation, stream -stage variation, and climate cycles, indicates that the effects of such stresses are delayed and attenuated with distance. The effects of ground- water pumping can be expected to be attenuated and delayed in a similar manner and spread out over time and space. Depending on the location of a well, several years may pass between the time pumping starts and the time the effects of the pumping are reflected in diminished discharge. It is important to note that the same physical processes that delay the onset of the effects of pumping on the streams also cause those effects to linger after pumping ends. So several years may also pass between the time pumping stops and the time the effects on streamflow end. Presently, the effects of pumping cannot be measured below the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. The total consumptive use of ground water in the upper Deschutes Basin as of the mid-1990s is estimated to be about 30 ft3/s: 20 ft3/s for irrigations and 10 ft3/s for public water supplies (assuming 50 percent of public -supply pumpage is consumptively used). Streamflow at the Madras gage, which is largely ground -water discharge during the summer, is about 4,000 ft3/s. Streamflow measurement techniques used at the gage have an accuracy of +/— 5 percent, resulting in a range of error of about +/— 200 ft3/s. Because total estimated consumptive ground -water use is less than 1 percent of the ground -water discharge at Madras, it is well within the expected range of measurement error. The amount of ground -water use also is small compared to the observed natural fluctuations in ground -water discharge. Streamflow in the Deschutes Basin fluctuates dramatically at a variety of time scales due to many factors, including runoff variations, reservoir and canal operation, and climate cycles. The ground -water component of streamflow also fluctuates widely. For example, August mean ground -water discharge to the Deschutes River between Bend and Culver varied over 100 ft3/s between 1962 and 1997 due to climate cycles. The August mean flow of the Crooked River below Opal Springs, which is mostly ground -water discharge, varied 460 ft3/s during the same period. Ground -water discharge to the Metolius River, based on October mean flows, varied over 400 ft3/s from 1962 to 1997. Combined, these climate -driven ground -water discharge fluctuations could account for variations in late -season monthly mean flows of the Deschutes River at Madras on the order of 1,000 ft3/s. Natural fluctuations of ground -water discharge of this magnitude in the confluence area totally mask the effects of ground -water withdrawal at present levels of development. Although the effects of historic ground -water pumping cannot be measured below the confluence area, the effects of canal leakage are easily discernible in the streamflow records. The August mean flows of the lower Crooked River increased between the early 1900s and the early 1960s by roughly 400 to 500 ft3/s in a manner that paralleled the increase in estimated canal leakage north of Bend during the same period. The correlation indicates that a large proportion of the water lost from leaking irrigation canals north of Bend is discharging to the lower Crooked River upstream of the Opal Springs gage. This is consistent with the hydraulic -head distribution and ground -water flow directions in the area. Although the effects of historic ground -water pumping on streamflow cannot be discerned in the streamflow record below the confluence area, it is pos- sible that such effects could be measurable on smaller streams in the upper Deschutes Basin. Most tributary streams emanating from the Cascade Range, such as Fall River, Squaw Creek, and Indian Ford Creek, are 74 either spring fed or otherwise hydraulically connected to the ground -water system. The ground -water dis- charge to these streams, and consequently streamflow, could be diminished to a measurable degree depending on the amount of ground -water pumping and the prox- imity of pumping to the stream. Long-term streamflow records, however, are not available to assess possible effects of historic ground -water development on smaller streams. Streamflow records are available for only a small number of tributary streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, and the gages that are operated are generally not in locations where the impacts of ground -water pumping are likely to be detected given the present geographic pattern of development. Some stream reaches, for example the Deschutes River between Bend and Lower Bridge, are perched above the ground -water system. Although leakage from such streams can provide recharge to the ground- water system, the rate of leakage is independent of ground -water elevation changes. Therefore, ground- water pumping will have little or no affect on the rate of leakage along such reaches. REFERENCES CITED Alexander, C.W., Moffatt, R.L., Boucher, P.R., and Smith, M.L., 1987, Water resources data -Oregon, Water Year 1985 -Volume 1 -Eastern Oregon: U.S. Geo- logical Survey Water -Data Report OR -85-1, 218 p. Allen, J.E., 1966, The Cascade Range volcano -tectonic depression of Oregon, in Transactions of the Lunar Geological Field Conference, Bend, Oregon, August 1965: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, p. 21-23. Bauer, H.H., and Vaccaro, J.J., 1987, Documentation of a deep percolation model for estimating ground -water recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 86-536, 180 p. Bellinger, T.R., 1994, Hydrology analysis and modeling of the upper Deschutes/Crooked River Basin, Oregon: Bureau of Reclamation, Water Resources Section, Denver Office, Draft Report, 59 p. plus appendixes. Blackwell, D.D., 1992, Thermal results of the Santiam Pass 77-24 drill hole, in Hill, B.E., ed., Geology and geothermal resources of the Santiam Pass area of the Oregon Cascade Range, Deschutes, Jefferson, and Linn Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open -File Report 0-92-3, p. 37-52. Blackwell, D.D., Steele, J.L., Frohme, M.K., Murphey, C.F., Priest, G.R., and Black, G.L., 1990, Heat flow in the Oregon Cascade Range and its correlation with regional gravity, Curie point depths, and geology: Journal of Geophysical Research, w. 95, no. B 12, p. 19,475-19,493. Bolke, E.L., and Laenen, Antonius, 1989, Ground -water inflow to the Deschutes River near the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon, August 1985: U.S. Geo- logical Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 88-4184, 18 p. Boussinesq, J., 1904, Recherches th6oriques sur 1'ecoulement des nappes d'eau infiltreds dans le sol et sur le debit des sources: Journal de Mathdmatiques Pures et Appliqudes, v. 10, p. 5-78. Boyd, T.G., 1996, Groundwater recharge of the middle Deschutes Basin, Oregon: Portland, Oregon, Portland State University, M.S. thesis, 86 p. Bureau of Reclamation, 1991a, Canal lining demonstration project -Canal ponding tests and seepage rate determinations: Denver, Colorado, Pacific Northwest Region Office, 10 p. _1991b, Geology report -Central Oregon canal system, upper Deschutes River Basin water conservation project, Oregon: Boise, Idaho, Division of Design and Construction, 80 p. 1993, Water loss analysis -Upper Deschutes River Basin water conservation project: Boise, Idaho, Pacific Northwest Region, 12 p. 1995, Agricultural crop water use summary, 1988-1994: Boise, Idaho, Pacific Northwest Region, 25 p. Caldwell, R.R., 1998, Chemical study of regional ground- water flow and ground-water/surface-water interaction in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 97-4233, 49 p. Caldwell, R.R., and Truini, Margot, 1997, Ground -water and water -chemistry data for the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 97-197, 77 p. Conrey, R.M., 1985, Volcanic stratigraphy of the Deschutes Formation -Green Ridge to Fly Creek -north -central Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, M.S. thesis, 349 p. Couch, Richard, and Foote, Robert, 1985, The Shukash and La Pine Basins -Pleistocene depressions in the Cascades of central Oregon [abs.]: Eos, v. 55, no. 3, p. 24. Cuenca, R.H., Nuss, J.L., Martinez -Cob, Antonio, and Katul, G.G., 1992, Oregon crop water use and irrigation requirements: Oregon State University Extension Miscellaneous 8530, 184 p. Daly, C., and Nielson, R.P., 1992, A digital topographic approach to modeling the distribution of precipitation in mountainous terrain -Interdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and hydrogeology: American Institute of Hydrology, p. 437-454. Ferns, M.L., Lite, K.E., Jr., and Clark, M.D., 1996, Lithologic controls on groundwater discharge to the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and Lake Billy rV Chinook, central Oregon [abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 5, p. 65. Ferris, J.G., Knowles, D.B., Brown, R.H., and Stallman, R.W., 1962, Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 1536-E, 174 p. Fetter, C.W., 1980, Applied hydrogeology: Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 488 p. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice -Hall, 604 p. Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground -water hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2220, 84 p. Hubbard, L.E., Herrett, T.A., Kraus, R.L., Ruppert, G.P., and Courts, M.L., 1993, Water resources data, Oregon, water year 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Data Report OR -92-1, 474 p. 1995, Water resources data, Oregon, water year 1994: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Data Report OR -94-1, 473 p. Hubbard, L.E., Herrett, T.A., Poole, J.E., and Courts, M.L., 2000, Water resources data, Oregon, water year 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Data Report OR -99-1, 449 p. Ingebritsen, S.E., Sherrod, D.R., and Mariner, R.H., 1992, Rates and patterns of groundwater flow in the Cascade Range volcanic arc, and the effect on subsurface temperatures: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, no. B4, p. 4,599-4,627. James, E.R., Manga, Michael, and Rose, T.P., 1999, CO2 degassing in the Oregon Cascades: Geology, v. 27, no. 9, p. 823-826. Keith, T.E.C., and Barger, K.E., 1988, Petrology and hydrothermal mineralogy of U.S. Geological Survey Newberry 2 drill core from Newberry Caldera, Oregon: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, no. B9, p. 10,174-10,190. 1999, Hydrothermal mineralogy of core from geothermal drill holes at Newberry Volcano, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1578, 92 p. Laenen, Antonius, 1980, Storm runoff as related to urbanization in the Portland, Oregon -Vancouver, Washington area: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 80-689, 71 p. Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground -water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p. MacLeod, N.S., and Sherrod, D.R., 1992, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the west half of the Crescent 1 by 2 degree quadrangle, central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1-2215, scale 1:250,000. ' MacLeod, N.S., Sherrod, D.R., Chitwood, L.A., and Jenson, R.A., 1995, Geologic Map of Newberry Volcano, Deschutes, Klamath, and Lake Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2455, scales 1:62,5000 and 1:24,000. 76 Manga, Michael, 1996, Hydrology of spring -dominated streams in the Oregon Cascades: Water Resources Research, v. 32, no. 8, p. 2,435-2,439. 1997, A model for discharge in spring -dominated streams and implications for the transmissivity and recharge of Quaternary volcanics in the Oregon Cascades: Water Resources Research, v. 33, no. 8, p.1813-1822. Mantua, N.J., Hare, S.J., Zhang, Yuan, Wallace, J.M., and Francis, R.C., 1997, A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 78, no. 6, p 1069-1079. McFarland, W.D., and Ryals, G.N., 1991, Adequacy of available hydrologic data for evaluation of declining ground -water levels in the Fort Rock Basin, south- central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 89-4057, 47 p. Miller, D.W., 1986, Ground -water conditions in the Fort Rock Basin, northern Lake County, Oregon: State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, Ground -Water Report No. 31, 196 p. Moffatt, R.L., Wellman, R.E., and Gordon, J.M., 1990, Statistical summaries of streamflow data in Oregon - Volume 1 -Monthly and annual streamflow, and flow - duration values: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 90-118, 413 p. Morgan, D.S., 1988, Geohydrology and numerical model analysis of the ground -water flow in the Goose Lake Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 87-4058, 92 p. Morgan, D.S., Tanner, D.Q., and Crumrine, M.D., 1997, Hydrologic and water -quality conditions at Newberry Volcano, Deschutes County, Oregon, 1991-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 97-4088, 66 p. Neuman, S.P., 1975, Analysis of pumping test data from anisotropic aquifers considering delayed gravity response: Water Resources Research, v. 11, no. 2, p.329-342. Newcomb, R.C., 1953, Ground water available for irrigation in the Fort Rock Basin, northern Lake County, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report, 5 P. Oregon Climate Service, 1999, Climate data URL: <http://www.ocs.orst.edu/ocs-data.html>, accessed July 14, 1999. Oregon Water Resources Department, 1965, Compilation of surface water records of Oregon: 219 p. Orr, E.L., Orr, W.N., and Baldwin, E.M., 1992, Geology of Oregon (4th ed.): Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 254 p. Priest, G.R., 1990, Volcanic and tectonic evolution of the Cascade volcanic arc: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95 no. B12, p. 19,583-19,599. Redmond, K.T., and Koch, R.W., 1991, Surface climate and streamflow variability in the Western United States and their relationship to large-scale circulation indices: Water Resources Research, v. 27, no. 9, p. 2381-2399. Robinson, P.T., Brem, G.F., and McKee, E.H., 1984, The John Day Formation of Oregon -A distal record of early Cascade volcanism: Geology, v.12, no. 4, p. 229-232. Robison, J.H., Forcella, L.S., and Gannett, M.W., 1981, Data from geothermal test wells near Mt. Hood, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 81-1002, 24 p. Russell, I.C., 1905, Geology and water resources of central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 252, 138 p. Sceva, J.E., 1960, A brief description of the ground water resources of the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon: Oregon State Engineer [now Oregon Water Resources Department), Salem, Oregon, 55 p. 1968, Liquid waste disposal in the lava terrane of central Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Technical Projects Branch Report No. FR -4, 66 p. plus a 96 page appendix. Sherrod, D.R., 1991, Geologic map of apart of the Cascade Range between latitudes 430-440, central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1891, scale 1:125,000. Sherrod, D.R., and Smith, J.G., 2000, Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks of the Cascade Range, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2569, scale 1:500,000. Sherrod, D.R., Taylor, E.M., Ferns, M.L., Scott, W.E., Conrey, R.M., and Smith, G.A., in press, Geologic map of the Bend 30' x 60' quadrangle, central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2683. Smith, G.A., 1986, Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and petrology of the Neogene rocks in the Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon -A record of continental - margin volcanism and its influence on fluvial sedimentation in an arc -adjacent basin: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 464 p. (also Richland, Washington, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Report RHO -SA -555P, 260 p.) Smith, G.A., 1987, Geologic map of the Madras West and Madras East quadrangles, Jefferson County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Geological Map Series GMS -45, scale 1:24,000. Smith, G.A., and Hayman, G.A., 1987, Geologic map of the Eagle Butte and Gateway quadrangles, Jefferson and Wasco Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Geological Map Series GMS -43, scale 1:24,000. Smith, G.A., Manchester, S.R., Ashwill, Melvin, McIntosh., W.C., and Conrey, R.M., 1998, Late Eocene -early Oligocene tectonism, volcanism, add floristic change near Gray Butte, Central Oregon: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 110, no. 6, p. 759-778. Snyder, D.T., Morgan, D.S., and McGrath, T.S., 1994, Estimation of ground -water recharge from precipitation, runoff into drywells, and on-site waste - disposal systems in the Portland Basin, Oregon and Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 92-4010, 34 p. Soil Conservation Service, 1975, Urban hydrology for small watersheds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Technical Release No. 55, p. 2-5. State of Oregon, 1999, Oregon Blue Book 1999-2000: Salem, Oregon, 431 p. Stearns, H.T., 1931, Geology and water resources of the middle Deschutes River Basin, Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 637-D, 220 p. Swanberg, C.A., Walkey, W.C., and Combs, Jim, 1988, Core hole drilling and the "rain curtain" phenomenon at Newberry Volcano, Oregon: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, no. B9, p. 10,163-10,173. Swanson, D.A., 1969, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the east half of the Bend quadrangle, Crook, Wheeler, Jefferson, Wasco, and Deschutes Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-568, scale 1:250,000. Taylor, G.H., 1993, Normal annual precipitation, State of Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Oregon Climate Service, map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991, State soil geographic database (STATSGO): Soil Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1492, 35 p. 1993, National engineering handbook part 623 - Chapter 2 -Irrigation water requirements: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 284 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993, 1990 Census of housing, detailed housing characteristics, Oregon: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1990 CH -2-39, 249 p. plus appendixes. U. S. Geological Survey, 1958, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States through September 1950: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 1318, 550 p. Vorhis, R.C., 1979, Transmissivity from pumped -well data: Well Log -Newsletter of the National Water Well Association, v. 10, no. 11, p. 50-52. Walker, G.W., Peterson, N.V., and Greene, R.C., 1967, Reconnaissance geologic map of the east half of the Crescent quadrangle Lake, Deschutes, and Crook Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-493, scale 1:250,000. 77 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2001 - 689-090 / 08013 Region No. 10 2 w CD w CL 0 CD 0 L7 0 0. m w 0 x c. 0 0 to O CD c cn .0 c� v en 0 s c N W d Co 0 rD U2 O 7 w co 7O CD U) 0 c n CD m 0 co' w o' x cn v 0 0 0 .A N Printed on recycied'paper PACIFIC 920 S.W. Emkay Dr., Suite C-100 Bend, Oregon 97702 The Ridge at Eagle Crest (Eagle Crest II) Sewage Disposal Facilities Summary of Flow Contribution and Disposal Capacity April 9, 2001 Average Number of Average Annual Monthly Flow Constructed Design Disposal Date Contribution Disposal Cells Capacity March -00 191400 gpd 11 191800 gpd June -00 24,900 gpd 16 281800 gpd July -00 31,300 gpd 16 28,800 gpd October -00 21,600 gpd 19 347200 gpd March -01 12,200 gpd 19 341200 gpd (541) 388-4255 Fax (541) 388-4229 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture TO: Deschutes County Commission April 10, 2001 FROM: Alan Unger, 1544 NW Fourth St. Redmond RE: Eagle Crest Phase 3 public hearing I would like to comment on the following topics: Impacts of development to the City of Redmond; Master Planning for the Destination Resort. 18.113.070 Approval Criteria C. The economic analysis demonstrates that: 3. The destination resort will provide a substantial financial contribution which positively benefits the local econom throughout the life of the entire project, considering changes in employment demands for new or increased levels of public service, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource land. I would request that Eagle Crest address this issue and 1. Define "local economy" 2. Determine the impact on the Redmond area specifically, how low income jobs create low income housing demand. With solutions like contributions to COCAAN, COHRA, Habitat for Humanity and the City of Redmond for low- income housing. 18.113.090. Requirements for final master plan. M. Methods to be employed for managing automobile traffic demand. I would request that Eagle Crest address this issue to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips between Redmond and Eagle Crest. 18.113.070 Approval Criteria. I. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or will be provided onsite according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an existing fire district the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services Adequate public facilities to provide for necessary safety services such as police and fire will be provided on the site to serve the proposed development. I request that Eagle Crest reassess the fire district's needs and support to provide adequate structural fire protection and ambulance services. 18.113.010 Purpose E. It is not the intent of this chapter to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full time residents of the area Eagle Crest Phase 3 appears to be in effect a rural subdivision. Minimal recreation facilities are planned in conjunction with the 900 homes being built. Master Planning It is very important for planning by local jurisdictions to know the long-term impacts of development by Destination Resorts. All Cities and Counties in Oregon are required to develop a Comprehensive Growth Master Plan for a 20 -year term and address the state land use goals. Eagle Crest phase 1 estimated project population = 1,623; phase 2 estimated population = 3,475; and phase 3 estimated population = 2,700. The total for all three phases = 7,798. (Eagle Crest Domestic Water Supply System Master Plan Update April, 1999). This population is above the current population of Prineville. An article in The Bulletin, August 20, 2000 states that Eagle Crest and the BLM are discussing a land swap that could add another 770 acres to Eagle Crest. If you also consider privately owned lots 1512000001400, 151200000500, 151200000501, & 151200000502, there is the potential for hundreds more acres to be developed. How can Redmond accurately plan for a Regional Waste Water facility without the knowledge of a 20 -year growth plan? I request that you require a 20 -year master plan for Eagle Crest and that it address the state land use goals. In a letter from Shaaron Netherton of the BLM to Karen Green Hearings Officer received by the County on Sep 13, 1999, it states; "while we support the concept on an exchange, we need to understand the long-term growth projections of Eagle Crest before we could proceed with such an exchange." 18.113.50. Requirements for conditional_ use permit and conceptual master elan applications. B. Further information as follows: 9. An explanation of how the destination resort has been sited or designed to avoid or minimized adverse effects or conflicts on adjacent lands. The application shall identify the surrounding uses and potential conflicts between the destination resort and adjacent uses within 660 feet of the boundaries of the parcel or parcels upon which the resort is to be developed. The application shall explain how any proposed buffer area will avoid or minimize adverse effects or conflicts, I feel the proposed western 'route 1' does impact the livability of the Schrader's property. I feel that after a 20 year master plan has been completed that a better location for this road will be found that will serve the future development IN REPLY REFER TO: 2800 OR 49350 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Prineville District Office P.O. Box 550 (3050 N.E. 3rd Street) Prineville, Oregon 97754 Karen Green, Hearings Officer 1130 NW Harriman Bend OR 97701 Dear Ms. Green: S E, 1 3 1999 SEP This letter is to provide you with information about the meeting held on September 3, 1999, concerning developments of Eagle Crest Phase III that will affect public lands. Those in attendance were Tom Walker and Ron Hand, W&H Pacific; Jerry Andres and Allen VanVliet, Eagle Crest; Linda Swearingen, Deschutes County; Bob Bryant, ODOT; and Ron Wortman and myself. BLM. Eagle Crest has applied to BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross federal lands from the northwest corner of Phase II to the northeast corner of Phase III. Eagle Crest is also preparing to apply to BLM for a ROW to cross federal lands from the northwest corner of Phase III to Highway 126. Eagle Crest and BLM are also considering a potential exchange in the future. BLM policy is to provide reasonable access across federal lands to owners of isolated parcels. BLM will meet that responsibility when a ROW is approved that permits travel between Eagle Crest Phase II and Phase III. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by Eagle Crest with a proposed alternative that includes a road, bicycle trail, and all utilities within this single ROW. We are currently discussing the proposed secondary ROW with Eagle Crest. The Deschutes County Planning Division Staff Report, dated September 2, 1999, iucludcd recommendation 24 (page 28): The interior main roads within phase III and the two access roads across BLM land shall meet the following standards: Minimum paved width of 25 feet, with 2 inches of asphaltic concrete on a 6 -inch crushed aggregate base, with 2 -foot aggregate shoulders .... All bicycle/pedestrian paths shall be constructed to a paved width of 10 feet, with 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over a 4 -inch depth crushed aggregate base. Prior to further action by BLM, we will need the County to provide clarification on the County's legal requirements for a secondary access and minimum road standards for this secondary access. This information is necessary for us to determine the appropriate action for addressing Eagle Crest's access needs. Eagle Crest has expressed interest in an exchange for approximately 770 acres of public lands. These lands are located between Phase III and Phase II in section 15; north of Phase III in sections 8, 9, and 10, and west of Phase III in section 17. Exchange would place all federal lands around section 16 in the private sector except those south of section 16. While we support the concept on an exchange, we need to understand the long-term growth projections of Eagle Crest before we could proceed with such an exchange. If you have questions, call Ron Wortman at (541) 416-6709 or write to the address above. Si pcerely; Shaaron Netherton Deschutes Field Manager cc: Ron Hand Allen VanVliet Linda Swearingen Bob Bryant Paul Blikstad tA V N Min CD CD CD. m 0 U m ge y� a�i�oaoi oC�� er ayi o� Ts�'"� CA°'o""c°�°'010 U2�� U � � . � �, �, > o aoi ct)s 2"o w o, � w >a.Q0� 7; ��N� c. o a• b-0�. �. a� a� o ti .. cn .o •.. �, .o o � .n a� o � a.o o � �' � .� •c o .o 43 2 y.cn 'OL) 3� a w CJ M. Cl Cd 0 Zo XU cox00� S �Q cd oaNi i 03 .`v. o o .� En w .f, GOi ani �a0ic� ca��.Caw�i � "n000 �. 3 c4 a�g 0 to a� a� , o q o a, o vn� r �'"s o ami ° v3 ° a'� c °U'- °' bo p bnWa a��' 0 V bb v a a�amo.� yo°nn�o.a°g ub WE 84 a a 10- .c� ��°a� veon �, � � 0... � ancQ aria b °'> S ti o "0 CQ,,' cCv o o� 3 0 d o'er aVi` �bo� �- -F1 2 (L)�'. ca Eaoi Gp 3r a� caM �-» bE- � a LU.�H .a o�3. 3o. r*a0. aS3y �U3 00 bX) bO WO 45 S O F M LU �o .� � a y• 9L tA V N Min CD CD CD. m 0 U m ge y� a�i�oaoi oC�� er ayi o� Ts�'"� CA°'o""c°�°'010 U2�� U � � . � �, �, > o aoi ct)s 2"o w o, � w >a.Q0� 7; ��N� c. o a• b-0�. �. a� a� o ti .. cn .o •.. �, .o o � .n a� o � a.o o � �' � .� •c o .o 43 2 y.cn 'OL) 3� a w CJ M. Cl Cd 0 Zo XU cox00� S �Q cd oaNi i 03 .`v. o o .� En w .f, GOi ani �a0ic� ca��.Caw�i � "n000 �. 3 c4 a�g 0 to a� a� , o q o a, o vn� r �'"s o ami ° v3 ° a'� c °U'- °' bo p bnWa a��' 0 V bb v a a�amo.� yo°nn�o.a°g ub WE 84 a a 10- .c� ��°a� veon �, � � 0... � ancQ aria b °'> S ti o "0 CQ,,' cCv o o� 3 0 d o'er aVi` �bo� �- -F1 2 (L)�'. ca Eaoi Gp 3r a� caM �-» bE- � a LU.�H .a o�3. 3o. r*a0. aS3y �U3 00 bX) bO WO 45 S O s �TORIES THE BULLETIN • Sunday, August 20, 2000 A9 40%, indigenous Yoruba, Ibo, Fulani 7 billion, Import $9.8 billiont fiscal year) ,000 live births' columbite, palm oil, i, hides and skins, textiles, aterials, food products, printing, ceramics, steel §1995 estimate The New York Times n Hausa are two of the ,is three main ethnic the third is the southeast - The military elite bankrolled s campaign to an easy,, if not al- ggether transparent, victory in �bruary 1999. As Obasanjo pre- Lred to take over in May 1999, : remained a giant question ark. Would he be a stooge of e north or his own man? Would I be a democrat his second time mmediately after taking over, asanjo flushed the military of ?olitically ambitious senior of- :rs, set up investigations into ruption and human rights Isesand, describing himself as detribalized politician," ap- nted officials from diverse eth- ` [ties in the military, ministries I his cabinet. be north, used to a monopoly power, felt betrayed. lut Obasanjo's failings have n overlooked by foreign gov- ments. Restive Nigerians tend Mswing to the other extreme ys, giving Obasanjo cred- )r little and seemingly forget- ; the genuine strides during administration. The mere fact that Obasanjo been able to hold this country' ether 'is praiseworthy," said. teem B..Hanmah, a historian ` he University of Lagos. °;f Eagle Crest Exchange would eliminate federal land 'fragments' Continued from Al Before an exchange can hap- pen involving the land sur- rounding the new development, Paterno said, BLM will have to conduct a feasibility study, fi- nancial analysis and environ- mental assessment — all ac- companied by long periods for public comment and scrutiny. "This is something that, if it were to occur, would take three to five years to work out. Still, we think it might be in the pub- lic's interest to pursue it." In addition to the exchange process, BLM is revising its land use plan, which identifies which property the agency would like to exchange and what land it would like to ac- quire. A new land exchange would have to wait until revi- sions to the land use plan are complete. Although Eagle Crest has not identified any land for an ex- change, Paterno said property suitable for exchange would likely have to be located in or near the county and must be of equal value — not necessarily size — to the BLM property. "I'd like to see us look at land along a river, wetlands, deer winter range — something with significant public resources," he said. "But we do feel the people of Deschutes County would like see land exchanged be kept in the county." Although Eagle Crest has ex- pressed interest in the ex- change, thafs as far as officials there have ventured, said Allen Van Vliet, Eagle Crest director of construction. He said the company has not decided if it even wants the land, let alone agreed to the val- ue of the property or identified land it would contribute for a swap. "We've looked at it. We've discussed it, but that's it," Van Vliet said. "I can't imagine need- ing that much land or even wanting that much. We still need to do our homework to see if it makes sense to us." Van Vliet said Eagle Crest has no plans for additional de- velopments after Eagle Crest III, but he also did not rule out the possibility of future develop- ments. "We have no further plans to develop additional units of den- sity (homes, hotels, etc...) that we don't already have approval for," he said. The land identified for the exchange is typical High Desert' scrub containing Juniper trees and sagebrush with no ir- rigation. Although the value of the land, which is zoned for exclu- sive farm use, is around $1,000 per acre, that number would jump if Eagle Crest decided to develop it, according to Bob Shive, the city of Redmond's real estate agent of record. Install a high quality..,. HYDRO -SEED LAWN U's Quick and Inexpensive! CALL ADVANCED IRRIGATION TODAY! 383-8873 UC. #6809 Craftsman Two -Story Home - Romance With Vintage Touches Beautifully remodeled home in the heart of downtown Bend. Updated gourmet kitchen with granite countertops,.gas cooktop, and tile floors. Spacious family room would be a great theater room. A den/office for you to work at home. Wonderful views of Mirror Pond and the park. Home also offers a wood buming fireplace, 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths,.and 2696 sq. ft. of living space. #3096. MLS #2001073. Call Sandy at 383-4360 / 0..,$43 000 Eagle Crest II WQ - Deschutes County September 14, 2000 to: file from: Tom Hall V '' subject: Sewage spill - Eagle Crest II On September 13, 2000, Jim Frost, W&H Pacific told me that they had had a problem with the new portion of the drainfield system at ECII on Saturday, September 9t'. Small rocks became lodged in a valve to one of the new drainfield cell and the valve stuck in the open position. The new drainfield cell became overloaded and sewage discharged to the ground surface over much of the cell area. The open valve allowed the transport line to drain which allowed an air -lock to develop in the high part of that line. Consequently that line would not handle enough flow and there was an overflow at the pump station. The surfacing sewage was discovered and the problem was corrected by 9:00 am Saturday morning. 823-0/0 Robin Benett, one of the property owners near the original part of the ECII drainfield, call this morning, September 14, 2000, about the problem that occurred over the weekend. I explained what I knew about the problem and what had been done to correct it. I told her to call me if she had additional concerns or questions. Robin called me a couple of weeks ago about the original problem that was discovered during our inspection. She apparently knew about the drainfield near her house but did not know that it is for sewage disposal. I explained to her what the sewage disposal systems that are used at EC I and II consist of. I also told her that the permittee took action immediately to correct the problem when we discovered it at the time of our inspection. She wondered if drainfield areas need to be fenced. I explained that they do not have to be fenced but that we had suggested restricting public access to the contaminated areas with fencing or warning signs until the surfacing was stopped and the contaminated areas were limed. I also talked with Rick Kuss on September 14, 2000. He said that lime was applied to the contaminated areas. An air relief valve has been ordered for the pressure line and will be installed shortly. The line is not having a problem now because they have fully charged it. He also mentioned that last week Jayne West had called him about a complaint that she had just received from Robin. He had just been to the drainfields but went back out and verified that there was no surfacing sewage. He called Jayne back and told her this. I talked with Jayne today and she verified this. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum Date: March 23, 2001 To: file A/� From: Tom Hall I" Subject: Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest II INSPECTION REPORT On March 22, 2001, the Department conducted an inspection of the wastewater disposal systems at the original Eagle Crest Resort (Eagle Crest I) and at The Ridge at Eagle Crest Resort (Eagle Crest II). Cline Butte Utility Company is the permittee for the Eagle Crest II wastewater system. Inspection participants were Ric Kuss and Todd Samples both with Eagle Crest, Tom Walker, W&H Pacific and Tom Hall, DEQ. The primary purpose of this inspection was to check the calibration of flow meters for each of the wastewater disposal systems. We also observed the drainfield cells in each disposal system. The Eagle Crest developments are served by three drainfield areas. Two of the drainfield areas are located in the Eagle Crest I development. There is a pump station at each drainfield area that pumps the wastewater into the drainfield cells. All three pump stations are equipped with Data Industrial Corporation flow sensors and flow monitors. Each monitor has a digital display and totalizer. The flow sensor at each pump station is in the pressure sewer that runs to the drainfield. A drawdown test was done at each pump station. This involved measuring the depth to the liquid surface in the pump chamber, pumping for a measured amount of time and then remeasuring the depth to the liquid surface in the pump chamber. The flow rate, in gallons per minute, was then calculated using the inside horizontal dimensions of the pump chamber, the change in depth to the liquid surface in the pump chamber while pumping and the length of time the pump ran. At the original Eagle Crest I pump station the incoming flow could not be diverted during the test, so the incoming flow rate was determined and accounted for in the calculation of the flow rate to the drainfield. At the other two pump stations the incoming flow was diverted into a separate chamber during the drawdown test. The drawdown testing confirmed that the flow meters on all three of Eagle Crest's wastewater disposal systems are properly calibrated within the limitations of the test procedure. The flow sensor at the pump station for the Eagle Crest I original system is removed and the impeller cleaned twice a year. At the other two pump stations it has been found that annual servicing is adequate because these newer wastewater systems are equipped with effluent filters. Each of the drainfield cells in the three wastewater disposal systems were observed. All were functioning satisfactorily.* The wastewater disposal systems at Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest H appeared to be well operated and maintained, and were in compliance with permit conditions. Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest II March 23, 2001 Page 2 of 2 * During the drawdown testing at the Eagle Crest II pump station the wastewater was inadvertently pumped to the same drainfield cell that had already received a dose that morning prior to the testing. Normally this cell would not have received another dose until one and a half days later. The additional load of wastewater from the drawdown test together with the soil limitations of this drainfield area caused some minor surfacing along the lower disposal trench. The contaminated areas were covered with soil prior to the end of the inspection. cc: Alan Van Vliet, Eagle Crest Master Association, P.O. Box 1215, Redmond, OR 97756 Ric Kuss, Cline Butte Utility Co., P.O. Box 1215, Redmond, OR 97756 Tom Walker, W&H Pacific, 920 SW Emkay Dr., Suite C-100, Bend, OR 97702 Jackie Ray, DEQ, Pendleton .Paha �f c• r/, 1-i Richard and Jean Shrader 11480 W. Highway 126 Redmond, OR 97756 Re: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shrader: Department of Environmental Quality Eastern Region Bend Office 2146 NE 41", Suite 104 Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6146 FAX (541) 388-8283 March 30, 2001 Eagle Crest II WQ - Deschutes County This is in response to your March 14, 2001 letter. Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. first obtained a permit and began constructing and operating wastewater disposal systems, consisting of septic tanks, pump stations and large drainfield cells, to serve the Eagle Crest I development in 1985. A second permit was obtained for Eagle Crest II and similar systems have been constructed and operated there since in 1995. The following is in answer to Question 1 on page 2 of your March 14, 2001, letter and also addresses the unnumbered question in paragraph 5, page 1 of that same letter: • On March 22, 2001, the Department conducted an inspection at Eagle Crest 1 and Eagle Crest H primarily to verify the calibration of the wastewater system flow meters. It was found that these meters were calibrated and would provide reasonably accurate flow data. A copy of the inspection report is enclosed. • Monitoring reports are submitted to the Department by the permittees once a month. These monitoring reports provide flow data, based on flow meter readings which, in turn, are once each month, compared with flow volumes calculated from pump run time. This comparison provides verification that there are no significant discrepancies in the flow meter readings on a monthly basis. • As a further check on whether or not the Eagle Crest flow data is reasonable we compared the January 2001, monthly average sewage flows per service connection at Eagle Crest I, Eagle Crest H, Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver. The flows per service connection are as follows: Eagle Crest I - 257 gallons per day per connection; Eagle Crest II - 97 gallons per day per connection; Black Butte Ranch - 53 gallons per day per connection; and, Sunriver - 113 gallons per day per connection. This shows that the Eagle Crest flow data is not unreasonably low. The Eagle Crest I flow per service connection is higher because at this resort in contrast to the others there is a higher percentage of multi -family residential units, such as a condominium that may contain several individual dwelling units but has only one sewer service connection. PS Based upon the above, we see no reason to doubt the validity of the flow data reported for the wastewater disposal systems at either Eagle Crest I or Eagle Crest II. Answer to Question 2: We are confident that the Eagle Crest II system as planned will be able to safely accommodate the initial sewage flows from the proposed Eagle Crest III development in compliance with the Eagle Crest II permit. We have approved plans for the sewage collection system to serve Eagle Crest III and we understand a portion of the system has been constructed. (We are not required to inspect the construction.) Plan approval was based upon a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) received from Deschutes County. Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-018-0050(2)(axG), "if a local government land use compatibility determination or underlying land use decision is appealed subsequent to the Department's receipt of the LUCS, the Department shall continue to process the action unless ordered otherwise by LUBA or a court of law stays or invalidates a local action." We understand that we received the LUCS for the Eagle Crest III collection system prior to the current appeal. In addition, we have not been ordered to rescind any of our approvals. Therefore, we do not intend to revoke the previous plan approvals at this time. Neither do we intend to revoke the permit we issued for Eagle Crest II since it was also issued under a LUCS from Deschutes County and is necessary to properly regulate Eagle Crest II sewerage facility. Answer to Question 3: In light of the explanations provided in this letter and in our previous letters to you we see no reason, from the sewage disposal standpoint, for Deschutes County to refuse approval of the Eagle Crest Phase III development. Based on their performance over the past 15 years we are confident that wastewater systems at the Eagle Crest developments can continue to be managed and operated in compliance with their permits as these developments continue to expand. Question 4 was a request for a copy of the Eagle Crest I permit which was provided to you with our March 19, 2001, letter. On March 24, 2001, there was a discharge of sewage to the ground surface in drainfield cell No. 1 in the Eagle Crest II system. A copy of the incident summary from W&H Pacific is enclosed. It appears that a couple of small rocks became lodged in the control valve for cell No. 1 and kept it from closing which allowed the cell to become overloaded. The surfacing sewage problem was corrected within a couple of hours of notification by Cline Butte -Utility Company, which is the company that operates the sewage treatment and disposal system at Eagle Crest II. The problem with the control valve was fixed the next morning. The Department is reviewing its enforcement options relative to this matter. The drainfield units in both the Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest II systems are constructed, as development occurs to keep the drainfield capacity ahead of the wastewater flow increase. With few exceptions Eagle Crest has successfully expanded their wastewater disposal systems and maintained reasonable compliance with permit conditions for over 15 years. Dfq-DC1 In regards to your March 19, 2001, letter we have the fallowing additional comments: • Road access issues to the proposed development are not under the jurisdiction of the Depart !;mt of Environmental Quality. 'erg. OR 97701 ( 541) 388-6146 �► The sewage voit;me issue and connection of the initial stages of the proposed Eagle Crest III development to the Eagle Crest II sewerage system are addressed above. • Aquifer depletion concerns should be directed to the Oregon Water Resources Department. They can be contacted in Bend at 388-6669. • This Department does water quality monitoring of the Deschutes River. We have an ambient monitoring site at Lower Bridge (west of Terrebonne). Water quality at this site is impaired during the simmer primarily due to significantly reduced flows resulting from irrigation diversions at Bend. There is no evidence, however, that the sewage treatment and disposal system at Eagle Crest is a significant factor to these problems. The current water quality problems were m issue well before Eagle Crest started If you have fizrther questions regarding this platter please call either Tom Hall or me in Bend at (541) 388-6146, My extension is 251 and Tom's is 233. Sincerely, IX Richard /.Nichols, Manger Bend Water Quality Section Eastern Region RJN/tdh/mb cc: Corinne Sherton, Suite 205, 247 Commercial St. NE, Salem, OR 97301 William H. Sherlock, 200 Forurn Building, 777 High Street, Eugene, OR 97401 Robin Bennett, 436 Nutcracker Drive, Redmond, OR 97756 Alan Van Vliet, Eagle Crest, Inc., P.O. Box 1215, Redmond, OR 97756 Tom Walker, W&H Pacific, 920 SW Emkay, Suite C-100, Bend, OR 97702 Deschutes County Planning Division, Bend Water Resour�;es Department, Bend EPA, Oregon Operations Office, Portland Joni Hammond, Eastern Region, DEQ, Pendleton Mike Llewelyn, Water (duality Division, DEQ, Portland Roger Everett -- Deschutes County Department of Environmental Health i vL e KA!::%; g o n John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.. Governor CERTIFIED MAIL #7000 0520 0012 1762 3264 Cline Butte Utility Company P.O. Box 1215 Redmond, OR 97756 April 6, 2001 Department of Environmental Quality 2146 NE 4th Street, Suite 104 Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6146 Eastern Region Bend Office RE: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ERB-01-6734 The Ridge at Eagle Crest - Eagle Crest II WQ - Deschutes County On April 5, 2001, about mid afternoon we observed evidence of a discharge of sewage to the ground surface in one of the drainfield cells near Highway 126 in the Eagle Crest II system, The soil was still saturated. It appeared that the incident had occurred within the last 24 hours prior to our inspection. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-71-130(3) states that "discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage or septic tank effluent directly or indirectly onto the ground surface or into public water constitutes a public health hazard and is prohibited." The discharge of sewage onto the ground surface is also prohibited in Schedule A, Condition l.c., of your Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit, No. 107204. It is very important to prevent the exposure of people to sewage due to the risk of transmitting water borne diseases. Children are likely to be exposed to sewage on the ground surface in a residential area because they are often playing on the ground and may be unaware of the danger. We understand that all of the flow to the Eagle Crest II system had been diverted to the drainfield cells near Highway 126 for several days prior to our visit to rest the drainfield cells near the drainfield pump station. The additional load on that part of the system caused the failure. Even so it appears that the current Eagle Crest II drainfield is being used near its maximum capacity and this is with a significant portion of the Eagle Crest H flow being diverted to the Eagle Crest I expansion drainfield. i* Cline Butte Utility Company April 6, 2001 Page 2 Therefore by no later than April 27, 2001, please submit a plan and time schedule for reducing the flow and/or implementing wastewater system improvements that will provide consistent compliance with permit conditions. Also beginning by not later than April 14, 2001 please provide weekend inspections of the drainfield areas to insure proper operation. This is your second NON for a Class H violation of your permit. Oregon Administrative Rule 340- 12-041(2)(c) provides that a permittee shall not receive more than three NONs for Class II violations of the same permit within a thirty-six (36) month period without being issued a Notice of Permit Violation (NPV). If additional Class H violations occur, we will be referring these violations to the Department's Enforcement Section for the issuance of an NPV. The NPV is a formal enforcement action that requires you to submit one of the following, within five working days of its receipt: (1) a certification of full compliance with all permit conditions; or (2) a detailed plan and time schedule demonstrating what steps will be taken to gain compliance, together with interim measures taken to reduce the impact of the violations, and a statement that the permittee has reviewed all of the conditions and limitations of the permit and is in compliance with all other provisions. Please contact Tom Hall in this office at 388-6146 ext. 233 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, f � Richard. Nichols, Manager Bend Water Quality Section Eastern Region cc: Robin Bennett, 486 Nutcracker Drive, Redmond, OR 97756 Deschutes County Department of Environmental Health, Bend Tom Walker, W&H Pacific, 920 SW Emkay, Suite C-100, Bend, OR 97702