Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study...Walla Walla Basin Rivers Walla Walla Basin Streams ... Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership and Walla Walla Basin Watershed

Dry Creek (WA) drainage

Walla Walla-

College Plac

e

Mud Creek-LowdenGardena Farms

Lower Walla Walla R.

Upper Walla Walla R.

HBDIC Irrigation District

Walla W

alla R.

Irrigation District

Walla Walla, WA

Milton-Freewater, OR

Birc

h Cre

ek dr

ainag

e-

Easts

ide P

ipelin

e

Pine Creek drainage-

Gardena-HBDICOregon

Washington

Ü0 5 102.5

MilesLegend

Walla Walla Basin Rivers

Walla Walla Basin Streams

Walla Walla Basin Model Subregions

Walla Walla Basin Model Boundary

Figure 1. Walla Walla Basin model location and model subregion boundaries

Lower Touchet River

Yellowhawk Drainage

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂McDonald Bridge

Oregon

Washington

Ü0 6 123

MilesLegendWalla Walla Basin Model Boundary

Walla Walla Basin Rivers

Walla Walla Basin Streams

_̂ Walla Walla River Reference Locations

_̂ Tributary Reference Locations

Nursery Bridge

Pepper Bridge

Beet RoadWWR at Touchet

Figure 16. Surface water flow reference locations

Walla Walla River

Touc

het R

iver

Mill Creek

Little Mud Creek

Pine Creek Big Spring

Walla Walla BasinIntegrated Flow

Enhancement Study

Prepared for:O�ce of Columbia River

November 2017

Prepared by:Walla Walla Watershed Flow Study Steering Committee

Submitted by:Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership

Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership

WALLA WALLA BASIN INTEGRATED FLOW ENHANCEMENT STUDY Summary Report

Project No. 160135 November 2017

Daniel R. Haller, PE, CWRE Principal Engineer [email protected]

Bill Neve, CWRE Water Right Solutions. LLC [email protected]

Tyson D. Carlson, LHG, CWRE Associate Hydrogeologist [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 i

Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................ vi

Executive Summary ...................................................................................... ES-1 Overview .................................................................................................ES-1 Flow Study Development by the Steering Committee .............................. ES-3 Flow Study Objectives ................................................................................. ES-4 Measurement of Flow Study Objectives .................................................... ES-5 Selection of Projects .................................................................................... ES-6 Next Steps .............................................................................................. ES-10 Timeline Moving Forward ......................................................................... ES-11

1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Walla Walla Subbasin Overview.............................................................. 1 1.2 Flow Enhancement Study Background and Report Organization ......... 2 1.3 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Process Overview ..................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Study Co-Chairs .................................................................................. 3 1.4.2 Flow Study Steering Committee ........................................................ 4 1.4.3 Summary of Existing Historical Planning Efforts .............................. 7

1.5 Flow Study Stream Flow Targets .......................................................... 13 1.5.1 Interim Flow Targets ......................................................................... 14 1.5.2 Final Flow Targets ............................................................................. 16 1.5.3 Comparison of Flow Targets ............................................................ 17 1.5.4 Measurement of Flow Study Objectives ......................................... 18

1.6 Secondary Flow Study Objectives ......................................................... 19 1.7 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 20

1.7.1 Geology & Hydrology ....................................................................... 20 1.7.2 Oregon State Regulatory Framework .............................................. 23 1.7.3 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................. 24 1.7.4 Surface / Groundwater Modeling .................................................... 27 1.7.5 Climate Change ................................................................................. 28 1.7.6 Fish Presence .................................................................................... 29 1.7.7 Legal Issues ....................................................................................... 31 1.7.8 ESA Enforcement Issues .................................................................. 31

1.8 Framework for Adoption of Preferred Alternative ................................ 32

2 Project Development................................................................................. 36 2.1 Washington Conservation and Infrastructure TWG ............................. 36

2.1.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 37

ii PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017

2.1.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 38 2.1.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 39

2.2 Oregon Conservation and Infrastructure TWG .................................... 39 2.2.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 39 2.2.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 39 2.2.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 40

2.3 Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) ....................................................................................................... 40

2.3.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 42 2.3.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 42 2.3.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 45

2.4 Surface Water Storage ........................................................................... 45 2.4.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 45 2.4.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 45 2.4.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 48

2.5 Columbia River Pump Exchange ........................................................... 50 2.5.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 50 2.5.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 50 2.5.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 52

2.6 Water Right Transactions and Management ........................................ 52 2.6.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 53 2.6.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 53 2.6.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 53

2.7 Legal ........................................................................................................ 54 2.7.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 54 2.7.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 54 2.7.3 Projects Prioritized Based on Coarse Screen .................................. 55

2.8 Planning .................................................................................................. 55 2.8.1 TWG Membership and Process ....................................................... 55 2.8.2 Projects Considered .......................................................................... 55

3 Development of Alternatives .................................................................... 56

4 Recommendations and Next Steps ......................................................... 67 4.1 Funding Prioritization for 2017 - 2019 ................................................... 67 4.2 Feasibility Studies .................................................................................. 68 4.3 Environmental Review ........................................................................... 70 4.4 Legislation / Legal Coordination............................................................ 71 4.5 Timeline Moving Forward ..................................................................... 72

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 iii

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 74

References ......................................................................................................... 75

List of Tables (all in text) 1 Flow Study Steering Committee Membership

2 Interim Stream Flow Targets for Walla Walla River Downstream of Milton-Freewater

3 Final Stream Flow Targets for Walla Walla River Downstream of Milton-Freewater

4 Walla Walla River Basin Minimum Instream Flows (cfs) under WAC 173-532-030 in Washington

5 Comparison of Walla Walla River Instream Flow Targets

6 Washington Conservation/Infrastructure TWG Membership

7 Washington Conservation/Infrastructure Project Summary

8 Oregon Conservation/Infrastructure TWG Membership

9 Oregon Conservation/Infrastructure Project Summary

10 MAR/ASR TWG Membership

11 MAR/ASR TWG Project Summary

12 Surface Storage TWG Membership

13 Surface Storage TWG Potential Reservoir Sites – Initial Screening

14 Surface Storage TWG Secondary Screening Matrix – Potential Reservoir Sites

15 Surface Storage TWG Potential Storage Reservoir Sites after Second Screening (Pine Creek sites)

16 Columbia River Pump Exchange TWG Membership

17 July 2016 Walla Walla River Water Exchange Study Cost Comparison

18 Water Right Transaction TWG Membership

19 Legal TWG Membership

20 Planning TWG Membership

iv PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017

21 Seepage Assumption Summary Table

22 Summary of Projects in Alternatives

23 Alternative #1: Large (OR + WA) Columbia River Pump Exchange

24 Alternative #2: Large Columbia River Pump Exchange + Miscellaneous Projects

25 Alternative #3: Medium Pine Creek Storage

26 Alternative #4: Small Pine Creek Storage + Miscellaneous Projects

27 Table 27. Alternative #5: Hybrid: Columbia River Exchange + Pine Creek Reservoir Using Various Fill Sources

28 Additional Ongoing/Potential Projects in Walla Walla Basin that may help meet Flow Targets

29 Flow Study Alternatives Summary

30 Initial Funding List for Further Refinement and Adoption

31 Projected Flow Study Timeline

List of Figures (all in text) 1 Walla Walla Basin Map

2 Walla Walla River Habitat / Flow Relationship

3 Walla Walla River Instream Flow Target Management Points and Diversions

4 Example of Gaining/Losing Reaches in the Walla Walla River1

5 Basin Geology Summary

6 Walla Walla River Stream Flow

7 WWBWC Groundwater Monitoring Network

8 Example Groundwater Monitoring Location Showing Declining Levels

9 Groundwater Monitoring Location Showing 50-Year Decline: Well 25

10 Potential Climate Change-Predicted Groundwater Level Changes

11 WDFW Instream Atlas Fish Summary for the Walla Walla River

12 Preferred Alternative Decision-Making Flow Chart

13 Example of Numeric Model for Simplified Water Budget

14 Example Project Pairing Spreadsheet Output

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 v

15 Schematic of Conservation Benefits

16 WWBWC MAR Sites

17 Stiller Pond MAR Site in Operation

18 Summary Map for MAR/ASR TWG Projects

19 General Project Layout of Pine Creek Reservoir

20 Water Banking by the WWWMP

21 GSA Initial Model Results of 2 Alternatives

List of Appendices A Steering Committee Ground Rules and Outreach Documents

B DRAFT Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study Target Instream Flows, 2017

C Flow Study Project Review Documents

D Flow Study Project Summaries

E Walla Walla Basin Groundwater/Surface water Scenarios

Acknowledgements Many stakeholders contributed to data collection, analysis, and reporting for this project. The Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council would like to acknowledge, in alphabetical order, the following voting and ex-officio members for their contributions to this project and report: Bergevin – Williams and Old Lowden, CH2M Hill, City of Milton-Freewater, City of Walla Walla, Columbia County Conservation District, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Environmental Associates, Inc., Fruitvale Water Users Association, Hudson Bay District Improvement Company, Gardena Farms Irrigation District, GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., IRZ Consulting, Kooskooskie Commons, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Land & Water, Inc, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources Department, Trout Unlimited, Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Walla Walla County Conservation District, Walla Walla River Irrigation District, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. In preparing this Flow Enhancement Study report, Dan Haller, PE, CWRE of Aspect Consulting, LLC served as project manager, stakeholder coordination lead, and lead author; Tyson Carlson, LHG, CWRE of Aspect Consulting, LLC and Bill Neve, CWRE of Water Right Solutions, LLC provided technical review and report development.

vi PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

afy acre-feet per year

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

cfs cubic feet per second

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

ES-IT Early Snow Melt-Increased Temperature Scenario

Flow Study Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study

FWUA Fruitvale Water Users Association

GFID Gardena Farms Irrigation District

HBDIC Hudson Bay District Improvement Company

IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

LS-IT Low Snow-Increased Temperature Scenario

MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NLW Northwest Land & Water, Inc.

OCR Office of Columbia River

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department

OSWC Oregon State Water Commission

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

Study Partners WWWMP and WWBWC collectively

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TWG Technical Workgroups

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 vii

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WWBWC Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council

WWRID Walla Walla River Irrigation District

WWWMP Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-1

Executive Summary

Overview The Walla Walla River and its tributaries provide for agricultural production, support thriving communities, and sustain resident and anadromous fish populations. The Walla Walla River flows from its headwaters in Oregon to its confluence with the Columbia River in Washington (Figure ES-1 below). As in many western river basins, water supplies in the Walla Walla are over-appropriated.

Figure ES-1. Walla Walla Subbasin Map (NPPC, 2001)

N

CountiesColumbiaUmatillaUnionWalla WallaWallowa

Walla Walla sub-basinMajor StreamsMajor RoadsTownsState Boundary

Ayer

Touc

het N

orth

Sudbu ry

Har vey Shaw

St at e Hwy 125

Mill Creek

Touc

hetLuckenbill

State Hwy 204

Frog Hollow

State

Hwy

11

Wol f Fork

State Hwy 124US Hwy 12

Gardena

Umapine

Whets

tone

Bruce

Mou

n t P

leasa

nt

Tucker

Cott onwood

US Hwy 12

Patit

Walla Walla

Dayton

College Place

Milton-Freewater

Waitsburg

Weston

Dixie

Prescott

MILL CR

TOUCHET R

PINE C R

DRY CR

DRY CR

WALLA WALLA R

WOLF CR

WHETS

TONE H

OLLOW

BIRCH CR

TOUCHET R, N FK

WHISKEY CR

TOUC

HET

R, S

FK

WALLA WALLA R, S FK

SPRING VALLEY

WALLA WALLA R, N FK

ROBI

NSON

CR

PATIT CR

RUSSELL CREEK

COTTONWOOD CR

COPPEI CRBLUE CREEK

JIM CREEKLEWIS CREEKSPRING CREEK

COUSE CR

WALLA WALLA R

TOUC

HET

R

US H

wy 1

2

WashingtonOregon

10 0 10 KilometersData Source: ICBEMP

ES-2 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017

The Walla Walla Subbasin encompasses 1,758 square miles located in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties in southeast Washington State and Umatilla County in northeast Oregon State. Primary waterbodies include the Walla Walla River and Touchet River, both of which originate in the Blue Mountains. The Touchet River is a tributary to the Walla Walla, which is a direct tributary to the Columbia River. Melting snow from the Blue Mountains provides much of the annual runoff to the streams and rivers in the subbasin; the water level in many streams diminishes greatly during the summer months.

Draining an area of 4,553 square kilometers (1,758 square miles), the Walla Walla River and its tributaries originate in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and flow north and west to enter the Columbia River at Lake Wallula behind McNary Dam. About 73 percent of the drainage lies in Washington. Elevations in the subbasin range from about 1,800 meters at mountain crests to about 80 meters at the Columbia River. Average annual runoff of the Walla Walla River Basin is 462,000 ac-ft. Vegetation in the subbasin is characterized by grassland, shrubsteppe, and agricultural lands at lower elevations and evergreen forests at higher elevations.

With dryland agriculture throughout the subbasin and intensive irrigated cropland in the Walla Walla River valley, the Walla Walla Subbasin is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. Timber harvest and urban land uses are also influential. Approximately 90 percent of the subbasin is privately owned, with 9 percent managed by federal/state agencies. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation also owns approximately 8,700 acres within the subbasin.

In 2014, building on previous efforts, the Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership (WWWMP) and the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWBWC; collectively, the WWWMP and the WWBWC are referred to as the Study Partners) convened a steering committee (Steering Committee) to develop strategies to meet instream flow objectives while preserving existing diversionary requirements. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Office of Columbia River (OCR) invested in this effort through two grants: Grant No. G1400656 (completed in 2015) and Grant WROCR-WaWWWMP-00004 (completed in /2017), supporting this Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study (the Flow Study). Additional funding for this effort was also provided by Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

In 2014, building on previous efforts, the Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership (WWWMP) and the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWBWC; collectively, the WWWMP and the WWBWC are referred to as the Study Partners) convened a steering committee (Steering Committee) to develop strategies to meet instream flow objectives while preserving existing diversionary requirements. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Office of Columbia River (OCR) invested in this effort through two grants: Grant No. G1400656 (completed in 2015) and Grant WROCR-WaWWWMP-00004 (completed in /2017), supporting this Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study (the Flow Study). Additional funding for this effort was also provided by Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

The objective of this Flow Study is to determine the best package of options for achieving Walla Walla River instream flow targets for native fish species while


maintaining the long-term viability and water availability for irrigated agriculture, residential, and urban use. The Flow Study intends to identify strategies to meet instream flow demands while providing opportunities to protect and enhance municipal and agricultural needs. The Steering Committee consists of tribal, state, and local governments, as well as irrigation, municipal, and environmental interests to guide strategy development. The Steering Committee developed and screened a broad range of projects (e.g., conservation, storage, source exchanges, aquifer recharge, water markets), then grouped them into alternatives (Alternatives) to evaluate their ability to meet Flow Study objectives. The Steering Committee will now lead the next steps consisting of feasibility studies on the Alternatives, environmental review, expanded outreach, addressing Oregon-Washington joint decision-making strategies, and other efforts designed to move toward selection of a Preferred Alternative in the 2017-2019 biennium.

This executive summary outlines the Study’s status and findings as of September 2017. Funding for the next phases of the Flow Study is being provided through additional grants from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and a legislative proviso through the Washington Department of Ecology by the Washington State Legislature.

Flow Study Development by the Steering Committee The Steering Committee meets at least quarterly to provide guidance and decision-making on the Flow Study. The Steering Committee strives for consensus-based decision-making, which helps inform the Study Partners as they adopt final decisions. Member organizations participate as Voting, Ex-Officio, or Advisory Members and are shown in Table ES-1 below. In late 2017, the Steering Committee will extend invitations to additional stakeholders to participate in the next steps of the Flow Study development.


Table ES-1. Flow Study Steering Committee Membership Voting Members: Attend meetings, review materials, provide feedback, and vote. Gardena Farms Irrigation District (GFID) Washington Water Trust Walla Walla River Irrigation District (WWRID) Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Hudson Bay District Improvement Company (HBDIC) Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Bergevin – Williams and Old Lowden Irrigation City of Walla Walla

Fruitvale Water Users Association (FWUA) City of Milton-Freewater Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Kooskooskie Commons

Ex-Officio Members: Same as voting members but without voting authority Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership (WWWMP) Trout Unlimited

Walla Walla County Conservation District Columbia County Conservation District Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWBWC)

Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Washington Department of Ecology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Advisory Members: Kept updated and can provide input to the level desired but meeting attendance optional. Umatilla County Commissioners Washington Department of Agriculture Walla Walla County Commissioners Oregon Department of Agriculture Columbia County Commissioners U.S. Corps of Engineers U.S. Congressional Staff Bureau of Reclamation State elected officials/ Staff U.S. Forest Service National Resources Conservation Service Snake River Salmon Recovery Board The Freshwater Trust Tri-State Steelheaders

Flow Study Objectives The Steering Committee’s primary objective is restoring and protecting stream flows in the Walla Walla River. Towards that end, the Committee agreed by consensus to instream flow targets (Table ES-2). These targets approach historic instream flow conditions in the River, a significant improvement relative to current low flows of 0 to 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). Table ES-2 also summarizes Washington State minimum instream flows adopted by rule in 2007 (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-532)); these flows govern new water rights and changes to existing rights only, whereas the Flow Study target flows are designed to be met while also meeting existing water right demands.


Table ES‐2. Walla Walla River Stream Flow Targets

Time Period Flow Study Flow Targets

WAC 173-152-030 Flow Ranges by Gage

April 1—June 15 150 cfs 95 cfs to 350 cfs

June 16—June 30 100 cfs 95 cfs to 125 cfs

July 1—November 30 65 cfs 41 cfs to 150 cfs

Additional considerations of the Flow Study include providing opportunities for efficiency and protection of existing water uses. For example, starting in 2000 irrigators in the basin negotiated temporary irrigation bypass flows to benefit fish. The Flow Study Alternatives are designed to replace temporary bypass flows with water from new projects, which in turn return that bypass water to irrigators. However, water that was conserved from conservation projects would remain instream as required by individual conservation funding agreements. Additionally, depending on which Alternative is selected as the Preferred Alternative, there may be opportunities to augment or expand irrigation, municipal, and aquifer recharge uses in the future.

Measurement of Flow Study Objectives The Steering Committee designated eight management points on the Walla Walla River that divide the river into management reaches. The management points were selected in Oregon (2) and Washington (6) based on changes in major river characteristics, such as location of major irrigation diversions, location of tributary confluences, and where stream gages have been established to track river flows. Figure ES-2 shows these management points by river mile, along with the location of major irrigation diversions.


Figure ES‐2. Walla Walla River Flow Target Management Points and Diversions

Selection of Projects The Steering Committee identified and evaluated a wide range of strategies intended to meet these stream flow targets, including water conservation, increasing aquifer recharge, developing large-scale reservoirs, water markets, and pumping water from the Columbia River. In order to evaluate these strategies, the Steering Committee assembled the following Technical Workgroups (TWGs), whose function was to evaluate the timing, location, magnitude, costs and benefits of proposed flow improvement strategies:

• Conservation & Infrastructure in WA

• Conservation & Infrastructure in OR

• Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)

• Surface Water Storage

• Legal

• Planning

• Columbia River Pump Exchange

• Water Right Transactions / Management

Each of the TWG’s were chartered by the Steering Committee to:


• Develop potential project lists or strategies to meet or contribute to Flow Studyobjectives;

• Develop and document a screening process to reduce the list to priority effortswith the highest likelihood of success towards meeting or contributing to FlowStudy objectives;

• Provide a prioritized list of projects for completion of “Project ProposalTemplates”, which summarized the project attributes, benefits, and costs; and

• Participate in a “Project Pairing” evaluation with the Steering Committee toassemble various project packages into Recommended Alternatives designed tomeet Flow Study objectives.

Through this process, the Steering Committee and the TWG’s evaluated over 100 project alternatives to determine how best to meet Flow Study objectives. Based on this planning framework, the Steering Committee reached the following three initial conclusions:

1. One of two “anchor” projects would be necessary to meet the Flow Studyobjectives. Combinations of smaller complementary projects could not, bythemselves, meet them. The two anchor projects that are currently being vettedinclude a new reservoir in the Pine Creek drainage and a source pump exchangeon the Columbia River.

2. The small 33.1K acre-feet per (afy) year storage reservoir and exchange projectsdo not, by themselves, meet the flow targets in Table ES-2 at all the locations inFigure ES-1. Some additional complementary projects added to each anchorproject (e.g., water markets, conservation, MAR/ASR) are needed to fully meetthe objectives. A hybrid of the small 33.1K afy storage reservoir andWashington-only pump exchange would fully meet flow objectives 80 percent ofthe time.

3. The medium 45.8K afy storage reservoir, with enhanced water supply from MillCreek to increase fill reliability, nearly meets the Flow Study objectives 70percent of the time.

From these conclusions the Steering Committee advanced several Alternatives for further consideration, which are comprised of the following projects in Table ES-3. A summary of the location of the projects is shown on Figure ES-3.

These projects were then “paired” into 5 Alternatives1 described in Table ES-4. A spreadsheet model was used to evaluate their ability to meet the Flow Study objectives in the reaches shown in Figure ES-1. Cost estimates were developed using a variety of previous reports, inflationary adjustments, and best professional judgment. Primary and

1 Although five Alternatives are summarized in Table ES-4, each of these has several potential permutations discussed in Chapter 2 of the main text. A number of Alternatives were dropped from further consideration because they could not come close to meeting the Interim Flow Targets, and additional permutations are still being evaluated to maximize benefits and minimize costs.


secondary benefits were estimated using a combined qualitative/quantitative scoring matrix2 developed by the Steering Committee.

Table ES‐3. Summary of Projects Project Name Description

Target Flow Benefit

Anchor Projects

Pine Creek Reservoir

Construct a new reservoir on Pine Creek in Oregon. Several storage sizes were evaluated (33.1K, 45.8K, and 65K afy). Several filling sources are considered, including: Walla Walla River, Columbia River, and Mill Creek.

Active storage from 26.6K – 58.5K afy

Columbia River Exchange

Construct a new pump station on the Columbia River near the mouth of the Walla Walla River. Pipe water to irrigators in exchange for leaving water in the Walla Walla River. Exchanges evaluated include a large option to both OR & WA and a smaller WA-only option.

13.6K – 30.9K afy

Smaller Complementary Projects

Managed Aquifer Recharge

Infiltrate river water into shallow alluvial aquifers at a range of locations to increase Walla Walla River flows by increasing surface water inputs, retiming base flow, augmenting groundwater levels, and decreasing river seepage.

3.1 – 7.8 cfs

Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Directly inject treated river water (or shallow groundwater of adequate quality) into deep basalt aquifers or infiltrate river water into shallow alluvial aquifers for active recovery creating a source exchange so summer water rights can be left instream.

5 – 12 cfs

Telemetry Improve water management through automation to reduce demand and add savings to instream flow. 2 cfs

Water Market Incentivize water right transfers to meet Flow Study objectives. 1 cfs

GFID Conservation Pipe portions of the Upper GFID Ditch to conserve water and reduce storage/exchange demands. 10+ cfs

Lowden Ditch Conservation

Pipe portions of the Lowden #2 Ditch to conserve water and reduce storage/exchange demands. 2 – 5 cfs

Bennington Lake Reoperation

Modify Bennington Lake operations for approximately 1 month by releasing available storage into Mill Creek and/or Russel / Yellowhawk Creek to help meet Flow Study objectives in the Walla Walla River.

1,900 – 3,900 afy

White Ditch Conservation

Pipe portions of the White Ditch to conserve water and reduce storage/exchange demands. 5.6 cfs

Other Projects

Other conceptual-level projects include upgrades to the City of Walla Walla municipal system, restoring habitat in the Nursery Channel reach, additional pump exchange projects for HBDIC, GFID, and Lower Touchet irrigators, and enlarging Bennington Lake (see Chapter 3 of the main text for additional detail).

To be determined

2 The scoring matrix is described in detail in Chapter 3 for each Alternative. Generally, each category is on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher numbers reflecting better scores relative to each category (e.g. reliability, protectability, detectability, etc.).


Table ES‐4. Flow Study Alternatives Summary

Alt #

Alternative Description Cost3

Construction Unit O&M Meets Target?4

1

Pump 25.5K afy of Columbia River water from Lake Wallula near the mouth of the Walla Walla River to exchange WWRID, HBDIC, GFID and Lowden 4 irrigation systems, leaving instream the exchanged quantities plus efficiencies gained.

$163M $161/afy $2.25M/yr

Fully met in 4 of 8 reaches. Remaining 4 reaches achieve

2/3rds benefit.

2

Alternative 1 + Complementary Projects (White Ditch Conservation, ASR, MAR, and Bennington Re-operation, 32.6+ afy).

$169M $359/afy $2.5M/yr Yes for 7 reaches; 1 reach achieves

2/3rds benefit.

3 45.8K afy (39.3K active) Pine Creek Reservoir from Walla Walla River

$310M $202/afy $986K/yr

Yes for 6 reaches (70% reliability).

Remaining 2 reaches achieve 2/3rds benefit.

4

33.1K afy (26K active) Pine Creek Reservoir from Walla Walla River + Lowden Ditch Conservation, GFID Pump Loop, and Water Market

$275M $265/afy $947K/yr Yes (80% reliability).

5

Anchor Project Hybrid 5.1b: 33.1K afy (26K active) Pine Creek Reservoir from Walla Walla River + 13.7K Columbia River Pump Exchange

$338M $362/afy $1.36M/yr Yes for 7 reaches (80% reliability).

Anchor Project Hybrid 5.2b: 35.1K afy (28.6K active) Pine Creek Reservoir from Walla Walla River and Mill Creek + 13.7K afyColumbia River Pump Exchange

$354M $331/afy $1.36M/yr Yes (80% reliability)

3 Unit per acre-foot cost is construction cost and O&M costs over 50-year lifespan, assuming 3% inflation and a 3% discount rate for future costs. O&M costs are appraisal-level estimates at this stage. 4 The Steering Committee used a spreadsheet model to evaluate the efficacy of each Alternative to meet the Flow Targets. Follow up work with the hydrologic model for the Walla Walla basin is planned under the USBR grant. If an Alternative met the Flow Study objectives within a reasonable margin of error, it received a “Yes” when determining whether it met flow targets.


Figure ES‐3. Walla Walla River Flow Study Alternative Components

With a consensus-based package of Alternatives adopted for further consideration, the Steering Committee has recommended the following key next steps to advance them and select a Preferred Alternative:

1. Feasibility Studies and Data Gaps: Several of the Alternatives contain projectsthat need additional targeted work to help understand their feasibility. TheSteering Committee is developing a targeted list of actions for each Alternative.A major item will be to continue necessary engineering and design of selectedalternatives. Another key item underway in 2017-2018 is to use the Walla Wallabasin hydrologic model to improve the accuracy of the spreadsheet modeloriginally used to vet Alternatives.

2. Expanded Outreach: The Flow Study already benefits from a robust stakeholderprocess. However, the selection of Alternatives and the magnitude of the fundingnecessary to meet the Flow Study Objectives necessitate a broader audience. Inlate 2017, the Study Partners will extend formal invitations to new Washingtonand Oregon stakeholders who can help local constituencies shape the selection ofa Preferred Alternative.

3. Environmental Review: Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)scoping and development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/SEPAintegration strategy is being planned by the Steering Committee in 2018. This

Next Steps

will help vet Alternatives selected, identify data gaps in the analyses completed to-date, provide a formal way for all stakeholders to engage in the process, and allow the Steering Committee to help scope the budget and timeline for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

4. Legislation / Legal Coordination: A critical path item that is common to all ofthe Alternatives is to ensure that water supplies that are developed can beprotected instream on both the Oregon and Washington sides of the border. TheWashington Department of Ecology and Oregon Water Resources Departmentare actively exploring how to meet this need, either through existing statutoryauthorities or via Legislative change. At the same time, the Steering Committee isevaluating its current decision-making structure relative to other similar effortsthroughout the West and determining how best to form a Bi-State SteeringCommittee focused on the Walla Walla Basin. A pilot strategy to protect Bi-Stateflows also is being considered as well as the use of Agreement Not to Divert.

5. On-Going Pilots and Early Action Projects: Several projects have alreadyproceeded to pilot stage or could be developed as an Early Action Project for theselected Preferred Alternative. Following selection of a Preferred Alternative2019+), the Steering Committee is looking for a blend of early actionimprovements (2021+) on their way to a final solution (2023+).

6. Funding Coordination: Implementing a Preferred Alternative of the magnitudeshown in Table ES-4 will require a combination of federal, state, and localpartners. The Study Partners have already been successful in coordinatingfunding for initial phases of this work with Ecology and USBR. Understandinghow local irrigators and municipalities will benefit from a Preferred Alternativemay help shape the degree to which local funding is available (e.g. potential cost-share of O&M costs). Capital funding tends to be easier to obtain than long-termO&M funding, which is a significant factor for some of the Alternatives. All ofthese issues are being actively evaluated by the Steering Committee.

The Steering Committee’s primarily focus is on the 2017-2019 biennium, for which it has secured funding from both the Washington Legislature and USBR to continue implementation of the Flow Study. The Steering Committee has proposed implementing a Preferred Alternative over a 10-year planning horizon. Table ES-5 summarizes a timeline over the next 10 years.



Table ES‐5. Projected Flow Study Timeline Biennium Description

2017 - 2019 Targeted Feasibility Studies to fill Data Gaps, Environmental Scoping, Expanded Outreach, NEPA/SEPA Integration Strategy, Bi-State Caucus Formation, and Pilot Strategy to Protect Bi-State Flows

2019 - 2021 EIS, Interim Resolution of Legal Issue to Protect Bi-State Flows, Targeted Feasibility Studies, Selection of Preferred Alternative

2021 - 2023 Design of Preferred Alternative, Final Resolution of Legal Issue to Protect Bi-State Flows, Implementation of Early Action Items

2023 - 2025 Construction of Preferred Alternative, Monitoring of Successes of Early Action Items

2025 - 2027 Construction of Preferred Alternative, Monitoring of Successes of Early Action Items

A more specific description of anticipated near-term 2017-2019 studies that will inform continuing Steering Committee decisions towards a Preferred Alternative are:

July 2017 – June 2018

Ongoing efforts to address data gaps (hydrologic modeling and monitoring of surface and groundwater) and NEPA/SEPA integration will inform continued general engineering and feasibility studies of 5 current alternatives.

July 2018 - 2019

Study of some less likely alternatives may be dropped and continued efforts on data gaps and NEPA/SEPA as well as results of feasibility studies will inform selection of one or more preferred alternatives.

PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 1

1 Introduction The Walla Walla River and its tributaries provide for agricultural production, support thriving communities, and sustain resident and anadromous fish populations. The Walla Walla River flows from its headwaters in Oregon to its confluence with the Columbia River in Washington (Figure 1). As in many western river basins, instream and out-of-stream water demands often exceed available supplies.

Figure 1. Walla Walla Subbasin Map (NPPC, 2001)

1.1 Walla Walla Subbasin Overview The Walla Walla Subbasin encompasses 1,758 square miles located in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties in southeast Washington State and Umatilla County in northeast Oregon State (WWBWC, 2004). Primary waterbodies include the Walla Walla River and Touchet River, both of which originate in the Blue Mountains. The Touchet River is a tributary to the Walla Walla, which is a direct tributary to the Columbia River. Melting snow from the Blue Mountains provides much of the annual runoff to the streams and

N

CountiesColumbiaUmatillaUnionWalla WallaWallowa

Walla Walla sub-basinMajor StreamsMajor RoadsTownsState Boundary

Ayer

Touc

het N

orth

Sudbu ry

Har vey Shaw

St at e Hwy 125

Mill Creek

Touc

hetLuckenbill

State Hwy 204

Frog Hollow

State

Hwy

11

Wol f Fork

State Hwy 124US Hwy 12

Gardena

Umapine

Whets

tone

Bruce

Mou

n t P

leasa

nt

Tucker

Cott onwood

US Hwy 12

Patit

Walla Walla

Dayton

College Place

Milton-Freewater

Waitsburg

Weston

Dixie

Prescott

MILL CR

TOUCHET RPINE C R

DRY CR

DRY CR

WALLA WALLA R

WOLF CR

WHETS

TONE H

OLLOW

BIRCH CR

TOUCHET R, N FK

WHISKEY CR

TOUC

HET

R, S

FK

WALLA WALLA R, S FK

SPRING VALLEY

WALLA WALLA R, N FK

ROBI

NSON

CR

PATIT CR

RUSSELL CREEK

COTTONWOOD CR

COPPEI CRBLUE CREEK

JIM CREEKLEWIS CREEKSPRING CREEK

COUSE CR

WALLA WALLA R

TOUC

HET

R

US H

wy 1

2

WashingtonOregon

10 0 10 KilometersData Source: ICBEMP

2 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017

rivers in the subbasin; the water level in many streams diminishes greatly during the summer months.

Draining an area of 4,553 square kilometers (1,758 square miles), the Walla Walla River and its tributaries originate in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and flow north and west to enter the Columbia River at Lake Wallula behind McNary Dam. About 73 percent of the drainage lies in Washington. Elevations in the subbasin range from about 1,800 meters at mountain crests to about 80 meters at the Columbia River. Average annual runoff of the Walla Walla River Basin is 462,000 ac-ft. Vegetation in the subbasin is characterized by grassland, shrubsteppe, and agricultural lands at lower elevations and evergreen forests at higher elevations.

With dryland agriculture throughout the subbasin and intensive irrigated cropland in the Walla Walla River valley, the Walla Walla Subbasin is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. Timber harvest and urban land uses are also influential. Approximately 90 percent of the subbasin is privately owned, with 9 percent managed by federal/state agencies. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation also owns approximately 8,700 acres within the subbasin.

1.2 Flow Enhancement Study Background and Report Organization

In 2014, building on previous efforts, the Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership (WWWMP) and the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWBWC; collectively, the WWWMP and the WWBWC are referred to as the Study Partners) convened a steering committee (Steering Committee) to develop strategies to meet instream flow objectives while preserving existing diversionary requirements. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Office of Columbia River (OCR) invested in this effort through two grants: Grant No. G1400656 (completed in 2015) and Grant WROCR-WaWWWMP-00004 (completed in 2017), supporting this Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study (the Flow Study). Additional funding for this effort was also provided by Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

This report outlines the Flow Study’s status and findings as of September 2017. Funding for the next phases of the Flow Study is being provided through additional grants from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and a legislative proviso through Ecology by the Washington State Legislature.

This report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1 describes the purpose of the Flow Study, technical documents prepared by Steering Committee members, state, federal, tribal, local governments and a broader consultant team supporting the effort, and key watershed issues that help shape the selection of projects and alternatives being considered to-date.

• Chapter 2 describes the process used to vet and select projects that had the potential for meeting Flow Study objectives.


• Chapter 3 describes the Alternatives (comprised of individual projects and strategies) that are likely to meet Flow Study objectives.

• Chapter 4 describes recommendations and next steps envisioned by the Steering Committee to move towards selection of a Preferred Alternative.

1.3 Purpose Stakeholders in the Walla Walla Basin (also referred to in this report as the Basin) have worked together to identify and meet instream flow demands for more than 15 years. Their past efforts have resulted in individual actions that make incremental progress on improving instream flows, but by themselves will not achieve the kind of transformational and restorative change desired by Basin stakeholders. Larger-scale flow restoration planning efforts have also failed to result in a feasible solution. In recent years and using lessons learned from past efforts, a push to develop an integrated solution has emerged that has a greater potential for substantive instream flow improvement.

The objective of this Flow Study is to determine the best package of options for achieving Walla Walla River stream flow targets for native fish species while maintaining the long-term viability and water availability for irrigated agriculture, residential, and urban use. The Flow Study intends to identify strategies to meet instream flow demands while providing opportunities to protect and enhance municipal and agricultural needs.

1.4 Process Overview This Flow Study is the culmination of over 15 years of planning and study, and reflects recommendations of the Steering Committee on the current state of the planning effort under Ecology’s Grant WROCR-WaWWWMP-00004. Although more work is needed to refine, select, and implement a Preferred Alternative, substantial progress has been made not only on resolving technical answers and closing data gaps in the Basin, but also in coalescing a community of stakeholders necessary for collaborative problem-solving in the Basin. This section describes the Study Partners, historic planning efforts, and the roles and makeup of the current Steering Committee.

1.4.1 Study Co-Chairs Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership: The WWWMP is a local water management pilot program which was legislatively authorized in 2009 through RCW 92.92. The WWWMP consists of a nine-member Board and two advisory committees, which collectively provide a unique local governance structure with participation of a diverse set of stakeholders. The authorities of the WWWMP include participation in local, state, tribal federal and multistate water planning activities and initiatives, water banking, and development and administration of Local Water Plans. WWBMP co-chairs this Flow Study effort and is a primary grant manager for the current OCR and Ecology grants that provides some of the continuing funding for the Flow Study.

Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council: Watershed councils in Oregon are locally organized, voluntary, non-regulatory groups established to improve conditions of watersheds in their local area. Definitions and authorities for watershed councils in


Oregon is provided through ORS 541. The WWBWC was authorized by the Umatilla County Commissioners on May 19, 1994, governed by a Board of Directors. While initially the focus was on the Oregon portion of the watershed, over the years their focus has broadened to encompass projects in both the Oregon and Washington portions of the Walla Walla Basin. WWBWC co-chairs this Flow Study effort and is the primary grant manager for the current USBR WaterSmart grant that provides some of the continuing funding for the Flow Study.

1.4.2 Flow Study Steering Committee The Steering Committee consists of tribal, state, and local governments, as well as irrigation, municipal, and environmental interests that help guide strategy and project development. The Steering Committee began meeting in its current form in 2014, although Basin stakeholders have been actively collaborating on instream flow and water supply options for more than 15 years. Following an effort to clarify their roles and the decision-making process, the Steering Committee finalized a “Purpose, Structure, and Ground Rules” document in July 2016 (Appendix A). This document developed a consensus-focused decision-making process and 3 roles for participation:

• Voting Members: Voting members are expected to consistently attend meetings,provide feedback and review of documents distributed, meet deadlines forreviews.

• Ex-Officio Members: Ex-officio members have the same expectations as votingmembers, except they do not have a vote.

• Advisory Members: Advisory members are kept apprised of the Flow Studyand can provide input but are not expected to attend meetings.

The Steering Committee and Flow Study effort is also distinguished from other planning efforts by the active involvement of the CTUIR. The CTUIR’s primary mission is to protect and defend the rights secured in the Treaty between the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla Tribes and Bands of Indians in Washington and Oregon territories, and the United States, June 8, 1855 (Treaty of 1855). The CTUIR engages with Washington and Oregon on a government-to-government basis but has also engaged in stakeholder driven flow restoration efforts in the Basin. The CTUIR, which has helped steer funding towards the Flow Study and dedicated significant staff to the development and implementation of the Flow Study process, has put the Basin on notice that its commitment to collaboration will not continue without improved instream flow outcomes and identified the Flow Study as the best option to achieve an integrated flow restoration solution.

In order to evaluate projects and strategies for flow improvement, the Steering Committee assembled the following Technical Workgroups (TWGs), whose function was to evaluate the timing, location, magnitude, costs and benefits of proposed flow improvement strategies:

• Conservation & Infrastructure in WA

• Conservation & Infrastructure in OR

• Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)


• Surface Water Storage

• Legal

• Planning

• Columbia River Pump Exchange

• Water Right Transactions / Management

Each of the TWG’s were chartered by the Steering Committee to:

• Develop potential project lists or strategies to meet or contribute to Flow Study objectives;

• Develop and document a screening process to reduce the list to priority efforts with the highest likelihood of success towards meeting or contributing to Flow Study objectives;

• Provide a prioritized list of projects for completion of “Project Proposal Templates”, which summarized the project attributes, benefits, and costs; and

• Participate in a “Project Pairing” evaluation with the Steering Committee to assemble various project packages into Recommended Alternatives (Alternatives) designed to meet Flow Study objectives.

Additional detail on these efforts are described in Chapter 2.

Membership in the Steering Committee has grown and changed from 2014 to 2017 and is expected to broaden further in the Advisory Member Role as the effort moves into environmental review, selection of a Preferred Alternative, and implementation. Membership evolution has included the following:

• The original proposed member list is shown in the Ground Rules in Appendix A.

• In 2016, following adoption of the Ground Rules, formal invitation letters were sent out to the member list with their proposed roles and a request for engagement in the planning process (Appendix A).

• In early 2016, Washington Water Trust requested admittance on the Steering Committee which was approved in an Advisory Role in February 2017, and as a Voting Member in October 2017. The makeup of the Steering Committee as of the date of this report is shown in Table 1.

• In October 2017, the Steering Committee approved a proposal to invite additional Advisory Role members. This goal of this expanded effort was to ensure that affected stakeholders had a voice in decision-making, particularly given the potential for cross-basin transfers with some of the projects being evaluated. Additionally, an expanded outreach effort is a component of the current Reclamation funding. The outreach letter, which contains the new proposed membership list, is provided in Appendix A, and was sent to existing and proposed members in November 2017.


The Steering Committee meets at least quarterly to provide guidance and decision-making on the Flow Study. One of the key recent efforts of the Steering Committee is the organization of projects into Alternatives and evaluation of their ability to meet Flow Study objectives. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

In the 2017-2019 biennium, the Steering Committee will now lead the next steps of this effort, consisting of feasibility studies on the Alternatives, environmental review, expanded outreach, addressing Oregon-Washington joint decision-making strategies, and other efforts designed to move toward selection of a Preferred Alternative in the 2017-2019 biennium.


Table 1. Flow Study Steering Committee Membership Voting Members: Attend meetings, review materials, provide feedback, and vote. Gardena Farms Irrigation District (GFID) Washington Water Trust Walla Walla River Irrigation District (WWRID)

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Hudson Bay District Improvement Company (HBDIC)

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Bergevin – Williams and Old Lowden Irrigation

City of Walla Walla

Fruitvale Water Users Association (FWUA) City of Milton-Freewater Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)

Kooskooskie Commons

Ex-Officio Members: Same as voting members but without voting authority Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership (WWWMP)

Trout Unlimited

Walla Walla County Conservation District Columbia County Conservation District Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWBWC)

Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Washington Department of Ecology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Advisory Members: Kept updated and can provide input to the level desired but meeting attendance optional. Umatilla County Commissioners Washington Department of Agriculture Walla Walla County Commissioners Oregon Department of Agriculture Columbia County Commissioners U.S. Corps of Engineers U.S. Congressional Staff Bureau of Reclamation State elected officials/ Staff U.S. Forest Service National Resources Conservation Service Snake River Salmon Recovery Board The Freshwater Trust Tri-State Steelheaders

1.4.3 Summary of Existing Historical Planning Efforts Numerous planning efforts have been conducted both within the Walla Walla Basin and regionally over the past several decades. A summary of selected planning efforts and documents, which have formed a foundations basis for this study are provided below, organized chronologically. The Study Partners maintain a bibliography of these studies and links to key documents are provided on the Flow Study website5: Centralizing this information is important for development of future Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) work as the Flow Study moves into environmental review in 2018.

Newcomb, R.C., 1965, Geology and ground‐water resources of the Walla Walla River Basin, Washington and Oregon: Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water Resources Water‐Supply Bulletin 21, 151 p, 3 plates.

5Flow Study Website: http://www.wwbwc.org/assessment/57-wwflow.html

http://www.wwbwc.org/assessment/57-wwflow.html


Newcomb developed one of the earliest comprehensive summaries of the geologic and hydrogeologic frameworks of the Walla Walla River Basin.

CTUIR Stakeholder Outreach (late 1980s – early 1990s)

CTUIR initiates stakeholder outreach for a comprehensive Walla Walla water-fish restoration program similar to the neighboring Umatilla Program. CTUIR initiates funding acquisition for fish passage facilities at irrigation diversions prior to ESA listing. CTUIR sponsors Corps Flow Feasibility Study.

Pacific Groundwater Group, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., 1995 (PGG et al., 1995), Draft Initial Watershed Assessment: Water Resources Inventory Area 32: Walla Walla River Watershed. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. Open File Technical Report 95-11, May 1995.

This report evaluated streamflow conditions, water rights, ground water conditions, water quality conditions and fish status in WRIA 32, Walla Walla Watershed. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate existing data on water to make decisions on pending water right applications.

Caldwell, Brad and Jim Shedd, and Hall Beacher. 2002 (Caldwell et al., 2002). Walla Walla River fish habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical Report 02-11-009, 2002

This report used Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) methodology6 to help indicate juvenile rearing habitat of spring Chinook and steelhead in the mainstem Walla Walla River below Mill Creek.

USFWS, HBDIC, GFID, and WWRID, 2000, 2001, 2003 (USFWS et al., 2003). Civil Penalty Agreement and Amendments, August 2003 (amending earlier 2000 and 2001 agreements).

This Agreement resolved a dispute over potential liability for a civil penalty under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from 1998 to 2002 over alleged take of bull trout. The Agreement established an intent to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and work with Basin stakeholders on conservation efforts in the Basin. The irrigators also agreed to voluntary bypass flows to benefit instream flows in the Walla Walla River.

Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, 2003 (WWBWC, 2003) Walla Walla Basin Strategic Action Plan, completed in September 2003 for Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Updated in October 2014.

This Action Plan explains how the Council’s Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies arise out of, and respond to pressing issues and drivers within our

6As defined by Ecology (Ecology, 2010), “The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) is regarded as the best available method for determining the relationship between stream flows and fish habitat. It is one of the most commonly used stream flow study methods in Washington State.”


basin. The maps at the end of the document are intended to spatially represent past and ongoing activities conducted by the Council and partnering organizations.

Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council. 2004 (WWBWC, 2004), Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR, 2004.

The WRIA 32 Planning Unit, Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council completed this plan, which emphasized aquatic and terrestrial habitat concerns and mitigation actions for hydropower development.

Walla Walla Watershed Alliance, 2005 (WWWA, 2005), Walla Walla River Mainstem Integration Strategy for Instream Flow Protection, March 2005.

This strategy was developed to identify and integrate mechanisms to legally protect instream flows in the mainstem Walla Walla River in Oregon and Washington. It was meant to promote conversations about how to integrate protection efforts, achieve equity in the Basin among Basin water users, and meet the needs of water users, fish, tribes, and others.

HDR/EES, Inc, 2005 (HDR/EES, 2005), Walla Walla Watershed Management Plan: Planning Unit Final, May 2005. Pasco, WA., May 2005.

This plan, developed under Washington State’s Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82), specifies management actions to address water quantity, water quality, aquatic habitat and instream flow issues on the Washington side of the Walla Walla Basin.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2005 (ODEQ, 2005), Walla Walla Subbasin Stream Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Pendleton, OR., August 2005.

The objective of this document is to address elevated water temperature in the Walla Walla River and tributaries on the Oregon side of the Basin. This plan was prepared under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, and a number of federal, state and local basin entities contributed to the final report.

GSI Water Solutions, Inc. (GSI), 2007, Geologic Setting of the Miocene to Recent Suprabasalt Sediments of the Walla Walla Basin, Southeastern Washington and Northeastern Oregon: Report written for Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council and Washington Department of Ecology.

GSI developed a consistent, basin-wide physical geologic model of the suprabasalt sediments in the Walla Walla River Basin.


Siemann, Dan and Martin, Steve, 2007 (Siemann and Martin, 2007), Managing Many Waters: An Assessment of Capacities for Implementing Water and Fish Improvements in the Walla Walla Basin. The William D. Ruckelshaus Center. Washington State University and University of Washington, July 2007.

This report solicited input from the Basin community and assembled relevant research to help watershed managers develop a workable approach to a shared governance mechanism, and served as a precursor to establishment of WWWMP.

Washington Department of Ecology, 2007 (Ecology, 2007), Amended Administrative Rule – Water Resources Program for the Walla Walla River Basin (Chapter 173-532 WAC), August 2007.

This rule amended the existing Walla Walla Basin Water Management Program by establishing instream flows in Basin streams. It provides limitations to issuance of new water rights and establishes geographic and quantity/use limitations for new permit exempt wells.

Baldwin, K., Gray, D., and Jones, J. 2008 (Baldwin and Jones, 2008), Walla Walla Watershed PCB’s, Chlorinated Pesticides, Fecal Coliform, Temperature, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL & Water Quality Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 08-10-094, 2008.

This plan provides for actions to address water quality issues for several different Basin streams on the Federal 303(d) list for not meeting water quality standards. Over a dozen Walla Walla Basin entities participated in this planning process and committed to taking action under the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, 2011 (Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, 2011), Technical Document - Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington. Prepared by Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, at request of Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, 2011.

This plan covers the Walla Walla and Snake River Basins, addressing a range of issues relating to salmon recovery, including habitat, hatcheries, hydropower and harvest of salmonids.

Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership, 2012 (WWWMP, 2012), Strategic Plan Update 2012-2015. Walla Walla Watershed Management Partnership, October 2, 2012.

The purpose of this document was to guide the WWWMP actions over the period of 2012-2015.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2013 (USACE, 2013), Walla Walla River Basin No Action Report (draft). United States Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, January 2013.

This report was issued in connection to the Walla Walla River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, implemented jointly with the Confederated Tribes


of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). The report identified two water exchange and irrigation efficiency alternatives that were potentially cost effective with maximum benefits. The report did not make a recommendation, and no action was pursued at the time due to “the inability to secure instream flows” necessary for the project (USACE, 2013). The CTUIR Board of Trustees endorsed the No Action decision in December of 2012.

Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, 2013 (WWBWC, 2013) Walla Walla Basin Aquifer Recharge Strategic Plan, Completed by WWBWC in January 2013.

This document summarizes geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Walla Walla valley and summarizes aquifer recharge goals, activities, and data for Walla Walla watershed stakeholders so that they may use it while making water resource sustainability decisions for ecological, agricultural, and economic benefit. This document describes the need to stabilize and restore the shallow alluvial aquifer and thus improve low-flow conditions in hydraulically connected streams.

GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., Jason Keller, 2015 (GeoSystems et al., 2015), Walla Walla Basin Integrated Water Flow Model: Model Development and Calibration, June 28, 2015.

GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., in collaboration with the WWBWC, developed a calibrated surface water – groundwater finite element numerical model. The numerical model was developed utilizing data sources to define Walla Walla Basin geology, precipitation, groundwater and surface water conditions, land use classification, agricultural and urban demand, and soil properties. The model was used to help understand how surface and groundwater interact in the Basin, how projects can improve instream flows and groundwater elevations, and which Alternatives selected by the Steering Committee have the greatest potential to meet Flow Study goals.

WWBWC, Troy Baker, 2015 WWBWC et al., 2015), Walla Walla River Metering and Telemetry Assessment, June 30, 2015.

This assessment summarized Basin telemetry and metering assets, data collected, and data gaps necessary for a mature understanding of the Walla Walla Basin water budget in real-time.

Watershed Strategies, 2015 (Watershed Strategies, 2015), Walla Walla Bi-State Stream Flow Enhancement Study Interim Progress Report, July 20, 2015.

This report was submitted under the OCR grant as an interim progress report on the status of the Flow Study goals, the local processes used to gain consensus on project packages, project development, early action items, and next steps.

IRZ Consulting, 2015 (IRZ Consulting, 2015), Walla Walla River Exchange Reports, Phase 1, 2, and 3, 2015.


These reports were commissioned to develop a non-federal evaluation of the Columbia River pump exchange alternatives to determine if alternate sizing, routing, and cost assumptions could improve the viability of the project.

Tom McDonald, Cascadia Law Group PLLC. 2015 (Cascadia Law Group, 2015), Legal Analysis: Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study Walla River Basin, December 10, 2015.

Cascadia Law Group (CLG) conducted the initial phase of a legal analysis of issues regarding the implementation of the Flow Study, including protecting instream flows from impairment when those flows are established in Oregon and cross into Washington and through the Walla Walla Basin (WWBWC 2017).

CTUIR and WWBWC, Anton Chiono and Steve Patten, 2016 (CTUIR et al., 2016), Walla Walla Basin Spreadsheet Water Flow Model, 2016.

During the development of Alternatives to meet Flow Study goals, the Steering Committee formed a “Project Pairing” subcommittee that helped group initial projects into Alternatives. Members of the subcommittee collaborated on spreadsheet tools that helped predict the efficacy of Alternatives.

EA Engineering, Kevin Lindsay, 2016 (EA, 2016), Washington Basalt ASR Preliminary Suitability Assessment, Conceptual Project Designs and Planning Level Cost Estimates, 2016.

The Reporting included technical memos on basalt ASR feasibility in this region and conceptual design options for different source water sites in the Walla Walla Basin, including treatment prior to injection into the basalt aquifer, permitting steps, and well and well siting suitability criteria.

Office of Columbia River (OCR), 2016 (OCR, 2016), Columbia River Basin Long-Term Water Supply and Demand Forecast, OCR, Washington State University, Aspect Consulting, December 2016.

This forecast, updated for the Washington Legislature every five years, provides an assessment of how future environmental and economic conditions in the Columbia River Basin are likely to change water supply and demand by 2035.

Northwest Land and Water, Jim Mathieu, 2017 (NLW 2017), Hydrogeologic Investigation, Eastside Milton-Freewater Managed Aquifer Recharge / Aquifer Storage & Recovery Project, OR, 2016.

The assessment utilized pumping tests and slug tests to investigate the feasibility of implementing Aquifer Storage and Recovery Projects along the Eastside of the Walla Walla River to the Northeast of Milton-Freewater, Oregon. Results from the assessment demonstrate that the area does seem suitable for ASR and identifies which sites in the Eastside area would be the most suitable based on hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity rates. Also, the report identifies next steps for analysis and regulatory permitting prior to construction.


GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., Jason Keller, 2017 (Geosystems et al., 2017), Walla Walla Basin Integrated Water Flow Model: Alternative Climate Scenarios Report, September 15, 2017.

In support of the Flow Study, GeoSystems Analysis, Inc. applied a calibrated surface water - groundwater finite element numerical model for the Walla Walla Basin to evaluate the potential impacts of hypothetical climate scenarios on hydrological conditions in the Basin.

WWBWC, 2017a (WWWBC 2017a), Walla Walla River Metering and Flow Telemetry Assessment, September 2017.

This report describes where flow telemetry devices are currently installed, how data is currently hosted and made available to the public, and what additional telemetry site installations would benefit basin water management, and what each telemetry installation would cost in parts, materials, and labor to install and operate. Also, a real-time flow telemetry device has been installed as part of this project at the GFID diversion on the Walla Walla River that is currently transmitting data

Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, Steven Patten, 2017b (WWBWC, 2017b), Walla Walla Basin Flow Analysis, Data Analysis Methods Supporting the Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study, 2017, Completed for water availability assessment for Draft Pine Creek Reservoir Report 2017.

The WWBWC developed and summarized data analysis methods that were used to quantify current instream flow values at each of the management points for the Flow Study to assist in project investigation and evaluation.

CTUIR, 2017a (CTUIR, 2017a), DRAFT Walla Walla Basin Integrated Flow Enhancement Study Target Instream Flows, 2017.

CTUIR compiled Walla Walla Basin instream flow studies that helped inform the establishment of flow targets adopted by the Steering Committee.

CTUIR, 2017b (CTUIR, 2017b), Status of Water and Fisheries Resources in the Walla Walla Basin: Current Conditions, Goals and Remaining Project Needs, 2017.

CTUIR provided a summary of the status and goals for Walla Walla River water and fisheries resources, summary of completed projects, and emphasis on major instream flow enhancement as the central outstanding need to achieve fish goals.

1.5 Flow Study Stream Flow Targets The Steering Committee’s primary objective is restoring and protecting stream flows in the Walla Walla River. Towards that end, the Committee agreed (by consensus) to instream flow targets. Initially these targets were set at interim levels pending further study, then refined to final flow targets (hereafter referred to as Final Flow Targets). Meeting the Final Flow Targets is the primary objective of the Flow Study.


This section discusses how the interim flow target levels were set, the magnitude of the interim and final levels, where the flow targets are set relative to river locations, and how they compare to Washington State regulations.

1.5.1 Interim Flow Targets Between 1973 and 2017, nearly a dozen studies and evaluations on flow and habitat in the Walla Walla River were performed. These formed the foundation for the development of interim flow targets by the Steering Committee. A compilation of the studies by the CTUIR was completed in 2017 that helped inform the flow target discussion (CTUIR, 2017a). Some of the key foundational findings are summarized below and the full summary is provided in Appendix B:

• The 2016 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Mid-Columbia Steelhead 5-year Status Review Report concluded that the greatestopportunity to advance recovery in the Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers MajorPopulation Group (MPG) would be to increase flows. The NOAA report alsoidentified reducing water temperatures and removal/improvement of passagebarriers as priority actions.

• The Walla Walla River and some of its tributaries are listed on the Oregon andWashington 303(d) list for water quality-limited streams, as regulated by theClean Water Act. The specific listings are for temperature and pesticides.However, flow is a key element of those limiting attributes.

• Three fish species—Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout—have been mostcommonly prioritized in various Walla Walla Basin subbasin planning and fishrecovery planning efforts. Pacific Lamprey is becoming increasingly recognized.These species are also critical to CTUIR as they are environmentally andculturally important First Foods. Although there are numerous other importantaquatic species, the assumption is that stream flow (a primary driver of theriverine ecosystem) that supports these three salmonid species also supports otherWalla Walla Basin aquatic species.

• The combination of instream flow reduction and floodplain development/ streamchannelization, resulted in the extirpation of spring Chinook salmon in the WallaWalla Basin and major reduction of steelhead and bull trout which are listed asthreatened under the Endangered Species Act. Current fish restoration effortshave begun rebuilding these populations.

• Salmon and steelhead flow needs for the mainstem of the Walla Walla Riverdownstream of the City of Milton-Freewater have several components including:

1) Spring flows for upstream migrating adults and downstream migratingsmolts;

2) Summer rearing flows; and

3) Fall flows to extend rearing and initiate steelhead upstream migration.

• CTUIR identified adult return goals for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead inthe Walla Walla Basin as 5,250 and 5,600 respectively. Average ten-year returns


indicate these goals are a long way from being met (average salmon return of 400 represents 8% of the goal; average steelhead return of 750 represents 13% of the goal).

• A comprehensive water and fish restoration program has been initiated in theWalla Walla Basin over the last 20 years. Approximately $90M has been spent onflow restoration, fish passage (ladders/screens at diversions), stream habitatenhancement (floodplain restoration), hatchery/supplementation actions (includesongoing WW Hatchery design/construction) and monitoring and evaluation ofwater and fisheries resources.

• There is additional work necessary across all project types but the largestremaining project gap or most critical remaining fish limiting factor is low streamflow.

• By measuring channel substrate, stream depth and water velocity at representativechannel cross sections at a range of stream flows, the IFIM method predicts howthe quantity of available fish habitat changes in response to incremental changesin stream flow. When using IFIM methodology in the mainstem Walla WallaRiver below Mill Creek, Caldwell and Beecher (2002) found the following asdepicted on Figure 2:

o Rearing potential continually increases with increasing instream flow upto 350 cfs. Flow increases from zero to about 65 – 100 cfs showed a steepincrease in rearing habitat, but adding flow beyond that showed only agradual habitat increases up to 350 cfs.

o At 65 – 100cfs, the Walla Walla River was estimated to provide 63-80%of the rearing potential for the two species. Beyond these flow levels,another 250 cfs would be necessary to reach full rearing capability.

o These data suggest that a flow target for salmon and steelhead summerrearing in the Walla Walla River below Milton-Freewater should be in therange of 65 – 100 cfs.


Figure 2. Walla Walla River Habitat / Flow Relationship

Based on this information, the original interim flow targets adopted by the Steering Committee in 2014 are shown in Table 2 (Watershed Strategies, 2015).

Table 2. Interim Stream Flow Targets for Walla Walla River Downstream of Milton-Freewater

Time Period Short-Term Flow Target Long-Term Flow Target

July 1—November 30 65 cubic feet per second 100 cubic feet per second

April 1—June 30 100 cubic feet per second 150 cubic feet per second

1.5.2 Final Flow Targets As projects were developed and Alternatives assembled to meet Flow Study objectives, the Project Pairing Subcommittee began testing the interim stream flow targets through both the spreadsheet model and numeric model. Because the hydrograph in the Walla Walla River transitions abruptly in many water years in June, it became apparent that higher flow targets in the second half of June would be very challenging to meet across a wide range of projects. Additionally, there was concern that the short-term spring flows of 100 cfs would not be supported by fish managers as a planning target due to insufficient flow to pass adult spring Chinook. Instead, 150 cfs appeared better supported and achievable. Based on this understanding, the Project Pairing Subcommittee recommended a modification to the interim flow targets, as shown in Table 3. These proposed flow targets were considered by the Steering Committee and adopted as final in February 2017.


Table 3. Final Stream Flow Targets for Walla Walla River Downstream of Milton-Freewater

FLOW TARGETS APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV

Interim Short Term 100 100 100/100 65 65 65 65 65

Interim Long Term 150 150 150/150 100 100 100 100 100

Final Flow Targets 150 150 150/100 65 65 65 65 65

1.5.3 Comparison of Flow Targets These Flow Targets represent significant improvements to flow relative to recent conditions in the Walla Walla River. Low flows range from no flow to 20 cfs in some reaches. The Flow Targets are also closer to likely historical instream flow conditions depending on river reach and water year. It is useful to compare the Flow Targets in this report to the Washington State minimum instream flows for the Walla Walla River Basin adopted by rule in 2007 (WAC 173-532). Table 4 summarizes the magnitude of flows adopted in WAC 173-532- 030 and the time periods/locations where closures exist to new appropriations.


Table 4. Walla Walla River Basin Minimum Instream Flows under WAC 173-532-030 in Washington

Month

Mill Creek MP 1 (Mill Creek at

Kooskooskie), USGS Gage No.

14013000

Walla Walla River MP 5a (Walla Walla River

at Detour Road), Department Gage No.

32A100

North Fork Touchet River, MP 6a (North Fork Touchet above Dayton), Department

Gage No. 32E050

Touchet River MP 11 (Touchet River at

Bolles), Department Gage No. 32B100

All Minimum Instream Flows in cubic feet per second January 110 250 95 150 February 125 250 95 150 March

150 350 125 200

April 150 350 125 200 May 125 250 125 Closure 200 Closure June 100 Closure Closure 95 Closure 125 Closure July 53 Closure Closure 65 Closure 74 Closure August 41 Closure Closure 53 Closure 48 Closure September 41 Closure Closure 51 Closure 56 Closure October 48 Closure Closure 63 Closure 82 Closure November 100 Closure Closure 95 Closure 150 Closure December 110 250 95 150

Table 5 summarizes the Final Flow Targets adopted by the Steering Committee relative to the WAC flows. The important distinction between adopted WAC flows is that they only govern new water rights and changes to existing rights. Flow Study target flows are designed to be met while also meeting existing water right demands. Because the Walla Walla Basin is over-appropriated (e.g., instream and out-of-stream needs exceed available supply in many years), Flow Targets that are inclusive of existing water rights have a much better chance of making meaningful improvements to instream flows and habitat in the Walla Walla River.

Table 5. Comparison of Walla Walla River Stream Flow Targets

Time Period Final Flow Study Flow

Targets WAC 173-152-030 Flow Ranges by Gage April 1—June 15 150 cfs 95 cfs to 350 cfs

June 16—June 30 100 cfs 95 cfs to 125 cfs

July 1—November 30 65 cfs 41 cfs to 150 cfs

1.5.4 Measurement of Flow Study Objectives The Steering Committee designated eight management points on the Walla Walla River that divide the river into management reaches. The management points were selected in Oregon (2) and Washington (6) based on changes in major river characteristics, such as location of major irrigation diversions, location of tributary confluences, and where stream gages have been established to track river flows. Figure 3 shows these management points by river mile, along with the location of major irrigation diversions.


Figure 3. Walla Walla River Flow Target Management Points and Diversions

1.6 Secondary Flow Study Objectives Meeting the Final Flow Targets is the primary objective of the Flow Study. However, a restoration effort of this magnitude creates opportunities for secondary objectives that can improve other Basin issues. Additional considerations of the Flow Study include providing opportunities for protection of existing water uses, future expanded uses and tributary improvements. For example:

• Starting in 2000, irrigators in the Basin negotiated temporary irrigation bypass flows to benefit fish. The Flow Study Alternatives evaluated in this report are designed to replace temporary bypass flows with water from new projects, which in turn return that bypass water to irrigators. However, water that was conserved from conservation projects would remain instream as required by individual conservation funding agreements.

• Depending on the selection of the Preferred Alternative, there may be opportunities to augment or expand, municipal, and aquifer recharge uses in the future. For example, one of the projects being considered is a pump exchange on the Columbia River.