-
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
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-3
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.
-
ES-4 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-5
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.
-
ES-6 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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:
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-7
• 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.
-
ES-8 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.).
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-9
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.
-
ES-10 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 ES-11
-
ES-12 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 3
• 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
-
4 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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)
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 5
• 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.
-
6 PROJECT NO. 160135 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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 7
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
-
8 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.”
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 9
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.
-
10 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 11
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.
-
12 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 13
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.
-
14 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 15
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.
-
16 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 17
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.
-
18 PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017
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.
-
PROJECT NO. 160135 NOVEMBER 2017 19
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.