Amphibian or man, frog and farmer alike depend on the Deschutes River hydrologic cycle for their livelihood. The latter thrives when the river is free from flux and the former depends on flux, storing over the winter and releasing incrementally over the growing season.
These competing interests came to a head on January 11, when WaterWatch Oregon (WWO), represented by Earthjustice, filed suit against The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Central Oregon Irrigation District, North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) and Tumalo Irrigation District for Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations attributed to mismanagement of the Upper Deschutes River in the way of Crane Prairie, Wickiup and Crescent Lake dams and their subsequent water releases downstream.
This followed a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against BOR on December 18, 2015.
Communications Director of WWO Jim McCarthy explains, “These frogs are now listed as threatened under the federal ESA, this law prevents harm to listed species, and these conservation groups are arguing that the water operations here cause harm to these listed frogs.”
The Deschutes Basin Board of Control (comprised of the eight irrigation districts, six of which utilize resources from the Deschutes River) released a statement in August 2014, just after the OSF was first listed as threatened under the ESA. In it they acknowledged studies showing the OSF had disappeared from an estimated 78 percent of its historic range from Southwest British Columbia to Northern California.
The Deschutes Basin Board of Control said, “recognizing the potential impact of the ESA listing, we worked with Fish and Wildlife, the BOR and other agencies and groups including WWO to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the OSF.”
Mike Britton, general manager of the NIUD, stresses that the HCP continues to be fleshed out by interested parties.
Britton added, “WaterWatch’s legal action is disappointing, because it was among the agencies, districts, tribal leaders and others involved in the HCP planning. I thought we were working for a collaborative solution.”
McCarthy addresses the assertion that a HCP is the solution by saying, “For this sort of thing to work, you need willing partners. Through their actions during the process, the districts showed us they weren’t particularly interested in change on the Upper Deschutes. They did this by proposing measures for the frog that were widely considered by WWO and the wildlife agencies to be wholly inadequate. Keep in mind those inadequate proposals came after the big 2013 Upper Deschutes fish kill. Then they spent months cancelling pre-scheduled meetings set up to resolve frog issues. That kind of behavior is one of the reasons why after eight years of process, there haven’t been significant changes in Upper Deschutes flows, an HCP still doesn’t exist, and we are in court.”
Where McCarthy says the HCP process was taking too long for river health to afford any more seasons of fish kills or Spotted Frog habitat loss, Britton says, “This sort of large stakeholder process is time and labor intensive, we tried to include all the parties that would be good for the HCP process. We are trying to change history and culture 100 years old, changing that in eight years is hard.”
Britton adds, “Irrigation districts continue to work on the HCP in the hopes that we can provide measures that support fish and frogs and other species as well as providing irrigation water to our farmers and patrons. Over $5 million have been invested in the HCP so far, half by Fish and Wildlife and half by the eight irrigation districts and City of Prineville. For every dollar of grant money, we have had to match it.” He estimates in one to two years the HCP will be completed.
The members of the irrigation districts, irrigation operators like farmers, have absorbed these HCP $2.5 million in costs in levees and assessments. These costs have increased as a result of the lawsuit.
As part of their efforts toward habitat restoration, the districts have put $10,000 to $15,000 in material and labor towards Ryan Ranch Meadow. A 65-acre site near Benham Falls which Britton says, “Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service and the districts see as a possible Spotted Frog habitat that could be used for mitigation measures as part of the HCP. District volunteers have installed pipes and fish screens and plan to flood the meadow to determine if it can retain enough water to be used by the frogs.”
Whether the meadow will hold water at a stable level year round is uncertain.
Some would note putting funds towards artificial habitat verses restoring degraded habitat isn’t in alignment with conservation ethics and McCarthy says there was no mention of this project in court proceedings last week.
Finally, Britton stresses irrigators have cooperated with conservation emergencies through voluntary releases during critically low water flow multiple times in the past several years.
Efficiency of water diverted and what water is used for are concerns McCarthy mentions. The NUID is largely an agricultural district and their water is used for farming. Though, he questions if watering lawns in the Central Oregon Irrigation District should be a priority for the Deschutes watershed.
Although the avenue for the lawsuit, the crux of arguments stretch beyond the Spotted Frog. “The river is about more than the frogs,” says McCarthy, “Legally, we already know it is against the law to cause this sort of harm to threatened species in the river. The community as a whole needs to treat the river with more value than an irrigation ditch. This is an extraordinary resource for irrigators, wild life and residents. The idea we would continue to treat the river this way is astounding.”
McCarthy mentions the new multi-million dollar standing wave as evidence that we are in a community that invests in rivers and has expectations of economic returns from them. “An unhealthy river isn’t good for Oregon and we certainly won’t see our dividends if we don’t protect our investment.”
As an industry reported to have generated close to $100 million last year (gross), agriculture irrigated by the Deschutes wants to protect their investments as well. Though the agriculture industry can see revenue fluctuations based on many factors, farmers claim to be seeing economic repercussions of the lawsuit already. Outside of the increased levees paid, pre-growing season ag-related sales are down. It was reported that Reed Grote, the branch manager at Ag West Supply, estimates from August to present the business has lost about $1.8 million in sales.
In the end, it isn’t just frog and farmer who depend on a healthy Deschutes to thrive, health of the river trickles into many aspects of everyday life. Whether touched by the economic, recreational or day to day impact of the Spotted Frog lawsuit, it is undeniably helping Central Oregonians reflect on their interests when it comes to hydrology in the High Desert.
How Can River Fluctuations Damage the Lifecycle of Rana Pretiosa, The Oregon Spotted Frog?
For the Oregon Spotted Frog (OSF) breeding activity begins in February and March, a few weeks post winter hibernation. Preferring ponds, slow moving streams and wet lands, vocalizing males choose the spawning area. During day light, females will stack or place adjacent, all egg masses, unattached, atop vegetation, in a few inches of water.
As eggs gestate, UV exposure, constant shallow cloaking of water free from extreme fluctuations is vital. Once eggs are ready to hatch, slow moving water free from predators like Brown Trout and Bull Frogs is critical for safe maturation. When tad poles sprout appendages and become stronger, young frogs can handle swifter and deeper water.
OTHER THREATS to SPOTTED FROG
Preventing the river from naturally meandering. This happens in the form of construction and building. Property owners want to prevent erosion. As a result, the river channel is reinforced where possible so that meandering happens as little as possible. This prevents the channel from shifting and thus the resultant shallow water habitat that is necessary for the success of the Spotted Frog is no longer part of the river’s profile.
Another threat to any organism is lack of biodiversity. As habitat becomes encroached or threatened, a species will live in more and more isolation in their community. For example, when there is plenty of healthy Spotted Frong habitat throughout the Deschutes, frogs might hop communities resulting in more diversity in breeding. As habitat becomes more scarce, intermingling from one population to another becomes less common because communities are spread out. Genetic diversity strengthens populations and lack of it is likely to weaken species as a whole.
Sunriver Nature Center
As a historic accident Aspen Lake at Sunriver Nature Center provides the perfect breeding habitat for the Spotted Frog. Having a weir at both water access points stabilizes water levels and keeps predators at bay. In the shallow wet lands surrounding the pond frogs find primo conditions for laying and hatching their eggs. Jay Bauerman, head researcher, conducts ongoing studies on the Spotted Frog. www.sunrivernaturecenter.org, 541-593-4394
Central Oregon Irrigation Districts Ask Judge to Deny Injunction
Deschutes Basin irrigation districts argued in Federal court March 22 against the motion for preliminary injunction filed by WaterWatch of Oregon and the Center for Biological Diversity in the name of Oregon spotted frogs. The motion if granted would result in abrupt and severe restrictions on the use of water storage reservoirs for irrigation purposes.
Attorneys for the irrigation districts argued WaterWatch and the Center for Biological Diversity’s requested injunction does not offer a scientific solution that appropriately balances the needs of the Oregon spotted frog with the needs of local ranchers, farmers, the tourism industry and the countless number of families that rely on the irrigation system.
Judge Ann Aiken indicated she would deny the motion and planned to issue a written decision soon.
Now WaterWatch of Oregon and the Center for Biological Diversity are asking the federal judge in the case to set dates for both sides to meet out of court to see whether they can come closer to settling the matter without a trial.
(Photo above | by Krystal Marie Collins)
